On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 10:55:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> What you are saying, in essence, is that we have not been
> treating autoconf transitions with the care we devote to other
> transitions; and as a result people have started shipping
> intermediate files.
>
> Wh
I demand that Sune Vuorela may or may not have written...
> ["Followup-To:" header set to gmane.linux.debian.devel.general.]
This is a mailing list, not a newsgroup (though it's mirrored as one).
Followups should therefore be directed to the list address, not at the
newsgroup mirror, particularly
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 09:50:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> We frown on autogenerated debian/control's for similar
>>> reasons, right?
>> Yes, but we don't frown upon autogenerated .o files.
> Uh... we don't?
No, we even ship this huge "gcc" thing whose primary goal is to autogenerate
.o
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:55:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:52:06 +, Stephen Gran
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>
>>> > It would be nice if we could support all sorts of forms of
>>> > rebuilds, but in practice, what we tend to take seriously i
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 10:55:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I'm not arguing for being opaque, or eliding real problems in favor
> > of a fast release. I am just mentioning in passing that redoing
> > your build system on the fly mid-build can be expected to have a few
> > hiccups. We fr
>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:52:06 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > It would be nice if we could support all sorts of forms of
>> > rebuilds, but in practice, what we tend to take seriously is the
>> > sort of FTBFS bugs that will affect the autobuilders. Since they
>> > bui
["Followup-To:" header set to gmane.linux.debian.devel.general.]
On 2006-11-11, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In all of the following discussion, no one has ever said
> anything about *WHY* policy states that clean must undo what build
> does. Unless we are clear on the r
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> Hi,
>
>
> In all of the following discussion, no one has ever said
> anything about *WHY* policy states that clean must undo what build
> does. Unless we are clear on the rationale for dictum, trying to
> resolve the issue is like
Hi,
In all of the following discussion, no one has ever said
anything about *WHY* policy states that clean must undo what build
does. Unless we are clear on the rationale for dictum, trying to
resolve the issue is like playing blind man's bluff.
There are several reasons for
9 matches
Mail list logo
