"Adam Borowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 08:55:40PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
"Adam Borowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>The ITP is #213361. The package is foo-clean; the packaging is
>trivial (clean autotoolage).
What is this foo package you keep talking about?
I know of lintian, linda, puiparts, but not foo.
And pbuilder.
What I mean, the set of automated tools to run is common to every
package tested at a given time. Rare or specialized tools do exist,
but I haven't heard of them being used around d-m these days.
At this time, the fashion^Wcommon practice is to run:
* lintian
* linda
* pbuilder
* piuparts
and there is hardly ever any reason to skip any of them, so it can be
generally assumed that if a metasyntactic variable is used, it's used
as an abbreviation for all four.
I assumed you meant something like that. I would personally use either:
{lintian,linda,pbuilder,piuparts}-clean, or $FOO-clean, just to be clear.
For the record I'm not a sponsor, I am not even a DD. Just a person trying
to be helpful.
It would be nice if debuild would grow a feature allowing compilation via
pbuild. pdebuild
lacks many features of the real debuild. Adding piuparts support to debuild
would then make
a single command that builds the package in a clean chroot and tuns all the
main automatic tests.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
