On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:59:30 +1100, Karl Goetz wrote:
> I don't know anything about waf not mentioned in this thread, but
> would it be possible to patch the package to work with a packaged waf
> instead?
> thanks,
> kk
>
See the reasons for removal previously referenced by Alexander:
http://list
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 11:51:50AM +, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:47:13AM +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> > I have no idea, but I'm not really sure if it's a good idea to remove
> > samba either...
> Absolutely not. They might be persuade-able away from waf though
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:47:13AM +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> I have no idea, but I'm not really sure if it's a good idea to remove
> samba either...
Absolutely not. They might be persuade-able away from waf though.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.o
Hi!
Am 08.02.2012 09:02, schrieb Jon Dowland:
> Do we have any idea how many packages in Debian currently use waf?
Well, we opened about 55 bugs see
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=waf-unpack;users=ftpmas...@debian.org
(The list was created by searching for "waf" files in all so
Do we have any idea how many packages in Debian currently use waf?
Is waf growing in popularity?
After reading [1] I get the impression it should die and we should
try to hasten that outcome.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/02/msg00714.html
--
Jon Dowland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really
> any different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The
That is one of the reasons why you are supposed to retool on distro builds.
Retooling the entire build system as part of the "re
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:16:01 +
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Michael Biebl writes ("Doesn't contain source for waf binary code"):
> > as this issue affects quite a few packages, I'd like to bring this
> > up for wider discussion.
> >
> > The issue basica
On 08/02/2012 02:05, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:47:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really any
> different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The
> "configure" script is an unreadable mess gen
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes ("Re: Doesn't contain source for waf binary
code"):
> However, regarding that specific point: waf once was packaged in
> Debian. See <20100227195857.07540195@utumno>
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/02/msg00714.html) f
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:47:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>> While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really any
> >>> different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The
> >>> "configure" script is an unreadable mess generated by the expansion of
> >>> macros in the au
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:12:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really any
>>> different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The
>>> "configure" script is an unreadable mess generated by the expansion
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:12:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really any
> > different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The "configure"
> > script is an unreadable mess generated by the expansion of macros in the
> > autotools
On 02/07/2012 05:19 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Michael Biebl writes ("Re: Doesn't contain source for waf binary code"):
The waf-unpack tagged bug reports refer to the Debian wiki with
instructions how to ship the waf script in unpacked form [2].
This is, unfortunately, not suffici
Roger Leigh writes:
> While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really any
> different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The "configure"
> script is an unreadable mess generated by the expansion of macros in the
> autotools packages; it too bears little relation to the or
Sorry, this message was meant for an other threat.
On 07/02/12 17:33, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
Hello List:
what is the status of an orphaned package but that is waiting for an sponsor to
be uploaded ?
Thanks,
Jerome
On 03/02/12 20:33, Michael Biebl wrote:
Hi,
as this issue affects quite a few
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 01:16:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Michael Biebl writes ("Doesn't contain source for waf binary code"):
> > as this issue affects quite a few packages, I'd like to bring this up
> > for wider discussion.
> >
> > The issue
Michael Biebl writes ("Re: Doesn't contain source for waf binary code"):
> The waf-unpack tagged bug reports refer to the Debian wiki with
> instructions how to ship the waf script in unpacked form [2].
This is, unfortunately, not sufficient.
> I assume the FTP team
Hello List:
what is the status of an orphaned package but that is waiting for an sponsor to
be uploaded ?
Thanks,
Jerome
On 03/02/12 20:33, Michael Biebl wrote:
Hi,
as this issue affects quite a few packages, I'd like to bring this up
for wider discussion.
The issue basically is, that the w
Hi!
Am 07.02.2012 14:16, schrieb Ian Jackson:
> * Upstream waf should be packaged somehow. Upstream's declared
>policy of asking packages to ship a copy of waf suggests that there
>won't be much API stability so we will need to encode the waf
>version number in the package name, an
On 07.02.2012 14:16, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I compared the tarball in waf in postler 0.1.1-1.1 with the upstream
> code as obtained from "git clone https://code.google.com/p/waf/";. It
> turns out that the tarball embedded in the "waf" script is not the
> original "waf" source distribution. It con
Michael Biebl writes ("Doesn't contain source for waf binary code"):
> as this issue affects quite a few packages, I'd like to bring this up
> for wider discussion.
>
> The issue basically is, that the waf build system uses a python script,
> which embeds a bz
Hi,
as this issue affects quite a few packages, I'd like to bring this up
for wider discussion.
The issue basically is, that the waf build system uses a python script,
which embeds a bz2 tarball containing further python sources. Those are
unpacked to .waf-*/ when the waf script is executed. More
22 matches
Mail list logo
