Niels Thykier thykier.net> writes:
> No, not out of the box. I believe it is supported via dh-exec and
> debhelper compat 9 (though only available in Wheezy, so if you are
> regularly backporting to older versions of Debian )
But using dh-exec kinda defeats the entire purpose of switching
On 2013-04-27 18:45, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Russ Allbery dixit:
>
>> >That code adds the line ".nr g 2" to the start of cpio.1 and adds it to
>> >the package as paxcpio.1.gz.
> Incidentally, there is a massive limitation of the debhelper tools:
> THEY CANNOT RENAME FILES.
>
No, not out of the
Guillem Jover debian.org> writes:
> Thorsten, OTOH the deb format has supported GNU ar generated archives
> for a very long time, it's documented in the man page. So while using
Right. I’ve been building for sarge and dapper occasionally, and
etch and hardy regularily, and supporting roughly a h
Russ Allbery dixit:
>That code adds the line ".nr g 2" to the start of cpio.1 and adds it to
>the package as paxcpio.1.gz.
Incidentally, there is a massive limitation of the debhelper tools:
THEY CANNOT RENAME FILES.
I’ve had to add code to debian/rules in *several* packages to copy
or rename fi
Russ Allbery debian.org> writes:
> Lars Wirzenius liw.fi> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:05:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> For the record, I completely disagree with this packaging advice. Why
> >> carry an upstream patch when you can handle this easily during build
> >> time?
R
Le Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 01:52:36PM -0400, Neil McGovern a écrit :
>
> 1: deliberate obfuscation for no benefit:
Hi everybody,
Can everybody please avoid to guess or propagate guesses on other persons
motivations ?
I think that a discussion can not be constructive if it contains statements
that
On 04/25/2013 01:52 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Perhaps you should go read the bug report first. As you seem to be
> unwilling to actually do research, I'll include the relevant section for
> your benefit:
> -
> 1: deliberate obfuscation for no benefit:
> echo .nr g 2 | cat - cpio.1 | \
>
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:05:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> For the record, I completely disagree with this packaging advice. Why
>> carry an upstream patch when you can handle this easily during build
>> time?
> As much as I dislike quilt, at least it makes it eas
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:05:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> For the record, I completely disagree with this packaging advice. Why
> carry an upstream patch when you can handle this easily during build time?
As much as I dislike quilt, at least it makes it easy to see what
change Debian is mak
Neil McGovern writes:
> Perhaps you should go read the bug report first. As you seem to be
> unwilling to actually do research, I'll include the relevant section for
> your benefit:
> -
> 1: deliberate obfuscation for no benefit:
> echo .nr g 2 | cat - cpio.1 | \
> gzip -n9 >debi
Neil McGovern writes:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:19:48PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> If you are scared by "echo x | cat - y", that it prevents you from
>> understanding the rules files, then you shouldn't touch the package
>> anyway.
> If you're deliberately obfuscating debian/rules when t
Hi!
On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 09:38:14 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Adam Borowski angband.pl> writes:
> > It can be done
>
> Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the
> package manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted
> at by the British Cabal with threats o
Thomas Goirand writes:
> Agreed. Especially when I see that this:
> echo .nr g 2 | cat - cpio.1 | \
> gzip -n9 >debian/pax/usr/share/man/man1/paxcpio.1.gz
> is called "obfuscation", then doom it as unacceptable for the archive.
I'm generally in favor of using standardized packaging
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:25:00AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 12:10 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > If you're deliberately obfuscating debian/rules when there's no or very
> > little advantage, then you shouldn't be producing the package.
> I'm not the one claiming that using echo an
On 04/25/2013 12:10 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> If you're deliberately obfuscating debian/rules when there's no or very
> little advantage, then you shouldn't be producing the package.
I'm not the one claiming that using echo and cat is obfuscation!
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-deve
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:19:48PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 10:39 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but can I just clarify: do you think that it's an advantage
> > that your custom debian/rules prevents others from understanding your
> > package?
> >
> I don't think anyone
On 04/24/2013 10:39 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> I'm sorry, but can I just clarify: do you think that it's an advantage
> that your custom debian/rules prevents others from understanding your
> package?
>
> Neil
I don't think anyone ever wrote that. Jakub was quite clear, IMO.
If you are scared by "
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:25:42PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Timo Juhani Lindfors , 2013-04-22, 13:22:
> >>Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it
> >>prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then
> >>all good for you and for Debian.
> >Was there perhaps s
* Timo Juhani Lindfors , 2013-04-22, 13:22:
Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it
prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then all
good for you and for Debian.
Was there perhaps some emoticon missing?
Sorry, yes, this one:
:/
Uncommon debian/rules s
On 04/22/2013 06:09 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> #690381
Gosh, what a shocking thread...
I didn't read until end, but nearly at half of it, it felt bad already.
> Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it
> prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then all
> good
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:38:14AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the
> package manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted
> at by the British Cabal with threats of using superpowers to remove
> such packages from Debian.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:23:51AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:28:18PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > % ls -lh debian/rules
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 mrvn users 1 Apr 16 12:27 debian/rules -> /us
Hi,
This one time, at band camp, Timo Juhani Lindfors said:
> Jakub Wilk writes:
> > Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it
> > prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then all
> > good for you and for Debian.
>
> Was there perhaps some emoticon missing?
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:38:14AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the
> package manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted
> at by the British Cabal with threats of using superpowers to remove
> such packages from Debian.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:28:18PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > % ls -lh debian/rules
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 mrvn users 1 Apr 16 12:27 debian/rules -> /usr/bin/dh
>
> I don't understand your point, other than to demonstrate tha
Jakub Wilk writes:
> Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it
> prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then all
> good for you and for Debian.
Was there perhaps some emoticon missing? Uncommon debian/rules setups
might be required in some cases but surely
* Andrey Rahmatullin , 2013-04-22, 15:45:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:38:14AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the package
manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted at by the
British Cabal with threats of using superpowers
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:38:14AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the
> package manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted
> at by the British Cabal with threats of using superpowers to remove
> such packages from Debian.
[
Adam Borowski angband.pl> writes:
> It can be done
Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the
package manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted
at by the British Cabal with threats of using superpowers to remove
such packages from Debian.
And I thought it wa
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:28:18PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:47:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > ?? ?? writes:
> > > Indeed.
> > > So, in any case one can use its own tool just like dh:
> > > %:
> > > debian/megatool $@
> > Yes, from
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:47:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> ?? ?? writes:
>
> > Indeed.
>
> > So, in any case one can use its own tool just like dh:
>
> > %:
> > debian/megatool $@
>
> Yes, from a Policy perspective. Although please consider using dh and its
> framewor
Игорь Пашев writes:
> Indeed.
> So, in any case one can use its own tool just like dh:
> %:
> debian/megatool $@
Yes, from a Policy perspective. Although please consider using dh and its
framework instead to make life easier for everyone else in the project who
may have to help out with m
2013/4/5 Adam Borowski :
> The policy says
Indeed.
So, in any case one can use its own tool just like dh:
%:
debian/megatool $@
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http:/
Le vendredi 5 avril 2013 13:41:50, Adam Borowski a écrit :
>
> It can be done, here's an example how to use a JIT C compiler (tcc)
> this way:
> dget http://angband.pl/debian/pool/main/g/goodbye/goodbye_0.2-1.dsc
> although you might have trouble smuggling this through the FTPmasters :p
>
> On
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 03:32:24PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> I've just realized that debian/rules might not be a makefile, but can
> be a script in any language.
Not really.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules
"This file must be an executable makefile, [..
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 03:32:24PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> I've just realized that debian/rules might not be a makefile, but can
> be a script in any language.
The policy says:
# 4.9. Main building script: `debian/rules'
# -
#
# This file must be an
On 05/04/13 12:32, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> I've just realized that debian/rules might not be a makefile, but can
> be a script in any language.
This is technically possible (dpkg allows it), but not acceptable for
Debian packages (Debian Policy requires that debian/rules is an
executable makefile).
Hallo Игорь Пашев,
2013-04-05 um 13:32:24 schriebst Du:
> I've just realized that debian/rules might not be a makefile, but can
> be a script in any language.
>
> Is there any package using debian/rules whihc is not a makefile?
> Are there any packages that can get advantages by using debian/rule
38 matches
Mail list logo
