found by grepping for @cdbs@
in buildcore.mk.)
So if we're documenting all this somewhere, we should probably also
mention that this is not the best cdbs feature to use.
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
d-user package". I think it's also a job for debtags or
something like it, to tell us what is an end-user package and what
isn't.
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
s they're better documented (IMHO) as schroot, for which I
couldn't find any useful docs.
If the schroot maintainers agree we could try to merge my stuff into
schroot.
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, looking at 10
packages per day, trying to figure out why something doesn't build.
However pushing out as much build logic as possible from
debian/rules is a central concept of CDBS, so this unlikely to ever
change.
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
PS: We've already had this discussion, so let&#
7;t know where the problems come from, it can only see where they
manifest themselves.
Richard Atterer wrote:
> Hmm, maybe the functionality could be included in lintian?
I'd have to talk with the lintian maintainers, but it's not easy.
Checklib needs a local Debian Mirror to work, and
houldn't have
been.
Maintaining such information somewhere within the library package
would be possible, but that sounds like a more complex plan, and I
doubt that many library maintainers know if their lib uses such
tricks or not.
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
at. I
don't see any solution though :-/
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
rocks. Thanks.
Actually that should be terribly easy to get this out of the DB
checklib uses, but it isn't, mostly due to lazyness on my side.
Might I include your script in checklib (under GPLv2+, if possible),
and put the results on a seperate page on rerun.lefant.net/checklib?
uld be the right place, though).
It's really quite sad that we can't easily automate such checks
during package build, as that would be the easiest way to get rid of
all the dependencies.
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
tp://greek0.net/div/checklib.tar.gz>
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
to put it inside the -dev package though, perhaps
in an /usr/share/debhelper/stripdeps/ file?
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
We could also put the flags in another location then under
/usr/share/debhelper (or into the control tarball, though that
sounds cumbersome), so other build systems could use it too.
Ideas where to put such a thing?
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 12:21:24PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Christian Aichinger wrote:
> > Con's:
> > * Debhelper is arch:all, thus the backend (that really strips the
> > NEEDED entry) would have to be in a separate package (new
> > dependency in debhelpe
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 01:40:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Christian Aichinger wrote:
> > Yep, the program which actually removes the unnecessary needed
> > entries should be seperate. My question was rather, would you accept
> > a script which uses such a tool in debhelper?
t don't have time to update it (or finally add a
cron-job for updating).
If you have any questions about setting up the beast, don't hasitate
to mail me, though. Perhaps I'll even find some time to revive
rerun.lefant.net/checklib
Cheers,
Christian Aichinger
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
15 matches
Mail list logo
