My bad, all of these package are not found in stable or testing.
Transition is finished. Sorry for the noise.
Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > owner 469049 Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bug#469049: debmake is deprecated
> Owner recorded a
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> owner 469049 Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bug#469049: debmake is deprecated
Owner recorded as Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> # see below for explanation
> severity 372964 important
Bug#372964: xtranslate: debmake is deprecated
Severity set t
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:19:41 +0900
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
>
> > > Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake,
> > > how many use debhelper and how many use something completely different?
> > $ grep
> Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
>
> If people use it and someone is willing to maintain it, it will continue
> to exist in the distribution, as it happens with every other package.
I think that if you survey the set of packages that comtinjue to use
debstd,
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
>
> But the question is... shouldn't it be?
debhelper used to include a dh_debstd that did more or less the same
thing as debstd. After a few years I noticed that noone had ever used
it, and removed it.
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake,
> > how many use debhelper and how many use something completely different?
> $ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends debmake Sources | egrep '^Package' | wc
> 92 18415
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:36:58AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> > Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake,
> > how many use debhelper and how many use something completely different?
>
> $ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends debmake Sources | egrep '^Package' | wc
> 92 1
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:08:11PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:49:44PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > On 04 Apr 2002 08:27:05 -0300
> > Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by
> > > dh_make?
> >
>
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 21:08:11 +0200,
Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake,
> how many use debhelper and how many use something completely different?
$ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends debmake Sources | egrep '^Package' | wc
92
Hi.
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:49:44PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> On 04 Apr 2002 08:27:05 -0300
> Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by
> > dh_make?
>
> Because many packages still depend on it.
Are there any statisti
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:42:28PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
>
> But the question is... shouldn't it be?
They have different design goals. Apart from anything else, debstd is
monolithic while debhelp
Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
> But the question is... shouldn't it be?
NO! debmake was deeply flawed in its interface and implementation,
and were debhelper to be a drop-in replacement it would always be
fightin
> Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
But the question is... shouldn't it be?
Em Qui, 2002-04-04 às 08:50, Santiago Vila escreveu:
> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by
> > dh_make?
>
> Because it's not. debh
On 04 Apr 2002 08:27:05 -0300
Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by
> dh_make?
Because many packages still depend on it.
regards,
junichi
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by
> dh_make?
Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
If people use it and someone is willing to maintain it, it will continue
to exist in the distribution, as it happens with every
> I couldnt help but notice that there are no Canadian or even American
> (South or Central) mirrors of debian with the non-us category.
Actually, I do have one on my server (in Canada):
ftp://ftp.jimpick.com/pub/mirrors/debian-non-US/
Canada doesn't have a NSA-like organization that has to pr
> Apparently,
> the case got taken to court and FreeBSD won against the gov't.
I've heard no evidence of this (and would find it *very* unlikely.) In
fact, the FreeBSD web pages still tell people to go to sites in South
Africa, Brazil, or Finland for the "eBones" and "secure" packages...
Even bet
I couldnt help but notice that there are no Canadian or even American
(South or Central) mirrors of debian with the non-us category. I have
been offered a T1 connect, but dont have any hardware. If someone has a
spare machine capable of running linux, I can provide a Canadian mirror.
We dont ha
18 matches
Mail list logo
