On 18 Sep 1999, James LewisMoss wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:13:49 +0200 (CET), Santiago Vila [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
Santiago David Welton wrote:
Xemacs21 - runs *autoconf* to generate other makefiles, which are
then run. [...]
autoconf doesn't generate makefiles. It
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:13:49 +0200 (CET), Santiago Vila [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
Santiago David Welton wrote:
Xemacs21 - runs *autoconf* to generate other makefiles, which are
then run. [...]
autoconf doesn't generate makefiles. It generates a configure file.
Do you seem what I mean?
David Welton wrote:
Xemacs21 - runs *autoconf* to generate other makefiles, which are then
run.
[...]
Do you seem what I mean? Each of these is doing something slightly
different, and it is a bit frustrating not to see a bit more
cohesiveness. Not that any of these things are *bad*, per
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 10:30:18PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 01:08:22PM -0500, David Welton wrote:
I think that as many packages as reasonably possible should
migrate towards them. They work pretty well, but I don't believe
in forcing them on people if
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 06:36:47PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Klee had an interesting idea on this, that makes more sense I think. If
you look at all the different kinds of programs that are being packages
you notice that a lot of them fall into quite well-defined categories
Michael Alan Dorman writes:
David N. Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi, while working on the ARM port, I've begun to become frustrated
with the IMO, not entirely necessary diversity in our rules files.
I agree with this. And I think debhelper is of enourmous value. I
have been
According to Ben Collins:
Or even simpler:
test -f config.status || ./configure
No, this case will cause the make to fail.
No it won't.
% false || true
% echo $?
0
Mike.
--
... somehow I have a feeling the hurting hasn't even begun yet
-- Bill, The Terrible Thunderlizards
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 04:01:42PM -0500, David Welton wrote:
to function in a more standard way, so that you pretty much knew what
was going on, without having to figure out whatever wierd specific
system a particular maintainer has used.
Can you give an example of a non-standard rules file?
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 02:31:30PM -0500, David Welton wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:23:50PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:39:05AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
Joey Hess' debhelper scripts are a good API, maybe it would be
good to standardize on
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 03:54:15PM -0500, Erick Kinnee wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:23:50PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
No.
Uhm, WTH is that about? No, what? No, they suck? No, don't standardize?
No, don't standardize.
How about a better idea maybe?
If there were some
On Wed 15 Sep 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
PS: I would appreciate its use as well, it sucks that some pkg's are
rebuilding everything if one only is working on a patch in to one
file
If all I'm doing is trying fix something, usually just invoking 'make'
will do it (or some subtle variation
On Sep 14, David N. Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be nice if more packages built as if you were running a
regular make, instead of restarting from the beginning (running
./configure again), and in a more consistent manner.
I proposed many times dh_configure to debhelper maintainer
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Paul Slootman wrote:
If all I'm doing is trying fix something, usually just invoking 'make'
will do it (or some subtle variation that a glance at the rules file
will make clear). Once it builds, I do 'debian/rules clean' and then
restart the package build, to ensure
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 03:54:15PM -0500, Erick Kinnee wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:23:50PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
No.
Uhm, WTH is that about? No, what? No, they suck? No, don't standardize?
No, don't standardize.
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 09:41:11AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
The specific problem is that with multiple optional helper packages
available, all are being used somewhere to build some package, so, if you
want to build all packages in Debian, you _must_ first install _all_ of
the helper
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 01:30:20PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Joey Hess' debhelper scripts are a good API, maybe it would be
good to standardize on them to some degree.
No.
I didn't say make them THE standard
What did you mean then?
I think that as many packages as
Klee had an interesting idea on this, that makes more sense I think. If
you look at all the different kinds of programs that are being packages
you notice that a lot of them fall into quite well-defined categories
such as Imake-based, automake-based, GNU-style, etc.
It would make sense to make a
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 01:08:22PM -0500, David Welton wrote:
I think that as many packages as reasonably possible should migrate
towards them. They work pretty well, but I don't believe in forcing
them on people if they are really opposed.
So even if we did decide to do what you suggest, I
18 matches
Mail list logo
