On 15:04 Sun 20 Nov , David Kalnischkies wrote:
<snipped>
> I am not a possible sponsor (no-D{D,M} sorry) and i haven't
> even reviewed your package closely, but i am relatively sure
> your package doesn't honor buildflags ala CFLAGS correctly.
> See dpkg-buildflags manpage, bits from dpkg [0] and some of
> the recent discussions here.
> (You will properly need to patch upstream Makefile through,
> upstream is properly not that interested in this usecase…)
>
Well I'm not sure how to use dpkg-buildflags but reading some threads
here in mentor I'm assuming i need to introduce ? in CFLAGS statement
like below
CFLAGS ?= upstream provided flags
Am I right? also the bits from dpkg says this is automatically done
for dh packages with debian/compat=9 but currently dwm is using
debian/compat=8 so do I need to make it 9 or shall I explicitly invoke
dpkg-buildflags in rules?
> But to be not completely useless with this mail, let me
> attach a patch for the initial issue reported in #493819.
> (I uses this for a while for my local dwm package)
> Fixing this would allow me to use the pristine dwm package
> again (plus a few configs for my various target system).
Thanks for the patch I applied it and marked it closes issue #493819
you can get latest source from collab-maint [0]
>
> Thanks for reviving the dwm packaging and
> good luck finding a sponsor!
Thanks :) Hopefully some one will get time to sponsor dwm (and
hopefully I become DM I can maintain it by myself)
[0] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/dwm.git;a=summary
Best Regards
--
Vasudev Kamath
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
