On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:47:04PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:13:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > Well, i was wrong, obviously, there is only one, altough it is of two > > different kinds. > > Ok. > > > If we move debian/control to debian/control.in, we can then use the same > > substitution for a debian/control target in the rules file. Let me adapt > > lablgl to this scheme and so you can compare. > > I prefere the solution without debian/control.in, is a complication > which does not add much benefit IMO.
Well, it is pretty standard, and i hope that dpkg-buildpackage will soon learn how to generate it automatically. > > I hear that there is discussin for moving the libraries to the abi > > scheme also, which would be reather neat. > > I don't know what you heard, but Julien contacted me about dh_ocaml and > a proposal for having more fine grained library dependencies and we > discussed a way of automatic computation of ABI numbers from md5sums. He > is preparing a draft proposal which will be posted soon on d-o-m for > comments. In that proposal your idea of substitution can probably be > integrated from depending libraries. More on this soon. Yeah, that was it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
