Re: orig source

1998-04-10 Thread James LewisMoss
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 15:14:33 +0200, Rainer Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Rainer Hi! Carey Evans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I've gotten the impression that the best way to do it is to use *pristine* uptream source, which means that the .orig.tar.gz is really the tar file you downloaded. The

Re: One source, two binary packages

1998-04-10 Thread Ben Gertzfield
Scott == Scott Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scott You actually only need to run it once. Once they've been Scott run once (probably right after porting your changes into a Scott new version), the updated files are left behind and will be Scott included in the diff generated

One source, two binary packages

1998-04-10 Thread Bob Hilliard
Thanks for all the input. Manoj, I have been relying upon your posted rules files from the start. Without them, I wouldn't have gotten this far. I have found my problem. I believed that changelog.Debian applied to the binary package, rather than to the source package, and had created

Re: Building sublanguages from gcc

1998-04-10 Thread Jim
I'm attempting to package the latest version of gpc (gpc-980405) but it wants to be built from the gcc directory. You can't start build in the gpc subdirectory (where ever/gcc-2.8.0/p). Manually running make from the gcc-2.8.0 directory works, and gpc seems to work well once it is made. Is

Re: One source, two binary packages

1998-04-10 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, Bob == Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bob I expect to make some minor modifications in the upstream Bob Makefile.in. Should these be mentioned in the copyright file or Bob the changelog? Ummm, changelog, I think, unless it somehow modifies or is relevant to the upstream

Re: Building sublanguages from gcc

1998-04-10 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Thu, Apr 09, 1998 at 08:55:08AM -0400, pouellet wrote: The debian directory is in the gpc directory since I didn't want to package gcc-2.8.0 and gpc. Do I *have* to put the debian directory in the gcc dir or is there a rules change I can add to cause the build command to move to the

Licences ok?

1998-04-10 Thread Peter.VanEynde
Hi mentors, I've ported CMUCL to debian (I've made packages but would like to experiment a little more), and now I'm looking into then licenses of some other add-ons I would like to package. Could you tell me if they are all right? First of all defsystem (a make-like system for lisp): ;;;

Re: Building sublanguages from gcc

1998-04-10 Thread Carey Evans
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but you can do: target: cd .. make I've been looking at recursive make invocations recently, and there are good reasons to make this: target: cd .. $(MAKE) See the Recursion node in the make info page (type `info make recursion')

Re: Licences ok?

1998-04-10 Thread Richard Braakman
;;; Written by Mark Kantrowitz, School of Computer Science, ;;; Carnegie Mellon University, October 1989. ;;; Copyright (c) 1989-95 by Mark Kantrowitz. All rights reserved. ;;; Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works ;;; based upon this software are

non-maintainer upload

1998-04-10 Thread G John Lapeyre
There is a bad bug in tcsh. In fact, it may point to another bug in hamm, as the tcsh bug has existed for quite some time (probably on bo) and exists on many other non-linux platforms. On hamm it happens to have worse consequences, it can cause tcsh to go into an infinite loop.