Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 10:21:06PM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote:
>> > it's completely identical to putting 13 into debian/compat
>>
>> Oh. So it is. I vaguely remember that using debian/compat and
>> "Build-Depends: debhelper" generated some lintian complaints.
>
> Using
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 10:21:06PM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote:
> > it's completely identical to putting 13 into debian/compat
>
> Oh. So it is. I vaguely remember that using debian/compat and
> "Build-Depends: debhelper" generated some lintian complaints.
Using debian/compat and "Build-Depends: debhe
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> it's completely identical to putting 13 into debian/compat
Oh. So it is. I vaguely remember that using debian/compat and
"Build-Depends: debhelper" generated some lintian complaints. I don't
see those anymore, though. Is doing something like that frowned-upon?
I'd pr
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 11:15:30AM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote:
> Hi. This probably has been covered before
It wasn't, but it's completely identical to putting 13 into debian/compat,
which never supported >= either.
> This works fine if you're building for Debian/sid in 2022. It does not
> work in any
On July 30, 2022 6:15:30 PM UTC, Dima Kogan wrote:
>Hi. This probably has been covered before, but it's so consistently
>annoying that I'd like to bring it up again.
>
>Currently the Debian build tools strongly encourage packages to have
>exactly
>
> Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (= 13)
>
>T
5 matches
Mail list logo