> Well, I did not talk about regular snapshots, but about direct exports.
> Some tools in Debian (like "darcs-buildpackage", thank you John for
> this) make it possible to make such SCM builds. However the Autotools
> output is not versioned, so not included in the tarball.
It is possible to run a
Eric Dorland wrote:
> Why? Just run auto* on the unpacked tarball and ship them in the
> .diff.gz? What makes it more legitimate in that case? That the
> upstream developers didn't run the autotools? They would have, if it
> were a proper release.
Well, I did not talk about regular snapshots, but
* Philipp Kern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Yes, they are necessary tools for developers. But nearly ever project
> > I've ever seen ships the files generated from the auto* tools.
>
> However I feel the use of a build-d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric Dorland wrote:
> Yes, they are necessary tools for developers. But nearly ever project
> I've ever seen ships the files generated from the auto* tools.
However I feel the use of a build-dependency is a legitimate one if the
package is built dire
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:30:56AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the
> > > relevant auto* be installed.
> >
> > Or you put the patch
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:30:56AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > So either you don't patch the package, or you be willing to require the
> > relevant auto* be installed.
>
> Or you put the patch in the .diff.gz. I think that's the best option.
Uh, i
* Robert Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 03:33 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > > Because we want to test for buildability. We want to make it possible
> > > to change any part of the program and barring real errors, i
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 03:33 -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Because we want to test for buildability. We want to make it possible
> > to change any part of the program and barring real errors, it should
> > still build. That upstream writes crap c
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Eric Dorland
>
> [Substituting your fixed sentence in the text below]
>
> | I think a build-dependency on automake and autoconf is almost always
> | a bad idea. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is
> | generally a bad thing. You should
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 08:14:09AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Eric Dorland
>
> [Substituting your fixed sentence in the text below]
>
> | I think a build-dependency on automake and autoconf is almost always
> | a bad idea. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is
> | generally a ba
* Eric Dorland
[Substituting your fixed sentence in the text below]
| I think a build-dependency on automake and autoconf is almost always
| a bad idea. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is
| generally a bad thing. You should just run automake and/or autoconf
| on the unpacked source
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 11:03:14PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Roberto C. Sanchez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:40:26PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> > > bad ideas. It makes the build mo
* Roberto C. Sanchez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:40:26PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> >
> > I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> > bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
> > bad thing. You should just ru
* Roberto C. Sanchez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:49:22PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> > > bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:40:26PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
>
> I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
> bad thing. You should just run automake and/or autoconf on the
> unpacked source and sh
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 06:49:22PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> > bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
> > bad thing. You should just run automake
* Eric Dorland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't think a dependency on automake and autoconf are almost always
> bad ideas. It makes the build more unpredictable, which is generally a
> bad thing. You should just run automake and/or autoconf on the
> unpacked source and ship it in the .diff.gz.
* Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> [Roberto C. Sanchez]
> > > W: toshutils; Package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf.
> > > This package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf. This is almost
> > > never a good idea, as the package should run autoconf or automake on
> > > th
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 01:31:31PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Build-depend on autotools-dev, and copy /usr/share/misc/config.guess
> and config.sub into place at build time. ln -fs also works. It's a
> very light build dep, so there's not much point in patching the right
> files into the sou
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 01:31:31PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Roberto C. Sanchez]
> > > W: toshutils; Package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf.
> > > This package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf. This is almost
> > > never a good idea, as the package should run autoconf or a
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 01:31:31PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Roberto C. Sanchez]
> > > W: toshutils; The file config.guess contains a timestamp line that is
> > > less than 2002.
> > > The autoconf file shown above contains a timestamp variable that has a
> > > year that is less than
[Roberto C. Sanchez]
> > W: toshutils; Package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf.
> > This package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf. This is almost
> > never a good idea, as the package should run autoconf or automake on
> > the source tree before the source package is built.
There'
-timeout 10 `fan` listed in a menu file
> does not exist.
When building toshutils, which I am in the process of adopting, on
Anibal's pbuilder, I get the above linda warnings. I asked him and he
suggested that I re-ask these questions on debian-devel. I am
wondering poeple think of the foll
23 matches
Mail list logo
