* Wouter Verhelst [Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:14:26 +0100]:
> Yes, but only if packages who declare build-depends-indep without having
> build-arch exist. Anyone feel like finding that out? ;-)
Simon run a test through the archive prior to sending his mail, to
find out.
--
Adeodato Simó
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:21:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:08:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > And I would strongly suggest you to consider Simon Richter's proposal,
> > which sounds a lot cleaner to me: if you have build-depends-indep in
> > your debian/cont
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:46:38AM +1100, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > dpkg (1.10.15) unstable; urgency=low
>
> > * Fix detection of va_copy.
> > * Back out debian/rules build-arch detection. It is *not* possible *at
> > all* to detect available targets in a rules file. Period.
>
> >
* Wouter Verhelst [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:08:00 +0100]:
> And I would strongly suggest you to consider Simon Richter's proposal,
> which sounds a lot cleaner to me: if you have build-depends-indep in
> your debian/control file, you must also implement build-arch and/or
> build-indep.
> Additionally,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:08:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> And I would strongly suggest you to consider Simon Richter's proposal,
> which sounds a lot cleaner to me: if you have build-depends-indep in
> your debian/control file, you must also implement build-arch and/or
> build-indep.
>
>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:17:36PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:45:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > The difference between the two is that -q checks whether a target is
> > uptodate and return an appropriate exit code, while -p prints out the
> > data base (i.e. the
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> >> To summarize the proposals so far:
> >>
> >> - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-arch if present"
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:45:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > > To summarize the proposal
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:31:08 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
>> > To summarize the proposals so far:
>> >
>> > - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-a
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > To summarize the proposals so far:
> > >
> > > - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-arch if pres
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> Questions? Comments? Seconds?
Yet another proposal to solve this problem can be found in #229357
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:45:07PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> There have been various proposals on that matter, and it always boils
> down to the same chicken-and-egg problem:
>
> - policy documents existing practice, which is to invoke "build".
> - the existing practice cannot be changed be
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > To summarize the proposals so far:
> >
> > - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-arch if present".
> >
> > Has been tried, does not work.
>
> AFAIK it is working as l
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> To summarize the proposals so far:
>
> - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-arch if present".
>
> Has been tried, does not work.
AFAIK it is working as long as you assume debian/rules to be a Makefile,
which is a pretty safe assumpt
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - "If a package has both Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep, it
> MUST have a build-arch target"
> Would probably catch 95% of all cases. So far, I know no existing
> packages that don't have those targets but use both B-D and B-D-I.
I know tons o
15 matches
Mail list logo
