On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:13:49 +0200, BJoerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>And now please go and read my reject mail again - I propose a way for
>people who really need help to set the correct Build-Depends.
The way you propose in your original bug report must be made possible
by a CDBS change
On 10350 March 1977, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:
>>> Doing an NMU on CDBS to fix #311724 might be a more constructive approach
>>> than asking everyone who uses CDBS with debian/control.in to go and fix
>>> their package's static debian/control for absolutely n
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10350 March 1977, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:
You may want to follow bug #311724, which is about exactly this issue.
Understood, but out of my hands; it appears to be a CDBS issue.
Yep, including this feature is a cdbs mistake. Using it is a
On 10350 March 1977, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:
>> You may want to follow bug #311724, which is about exactly this issue.
> Understood, but out of my hands; it appears to be a CDBS issue.
Yep, including this feature is a cdbs mistake. Using it is a maintainer mistake.
> The last ve
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
While checking your package in NEW I found that it has the cdbs "Play with
my debian/control in a bad way" option turned on, and thus modifies
Build-Dependencies on the fly.
[...]
You may want to follow bug #311724, which is about exactly
5 matches
Mail list logo
