On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > I have to say i verry rarely do not use debuild. And 99% of the
> > > exceptions are calling debian/rules clean.
> >
> > Precisely, debuild does not use dpkg-buildpackage, but call d
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Plus a note in policy clarifying that debian/rules is only an
> interface for dpkg-buildpackage but not users.
Right. If you want to make this a rule, then we should discuss it, reach
a consensus, document and publicize the change, and so forth.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:03:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> >>> I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
> >>> betwe
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> >> I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
> >> between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
>
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
>> between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
>> Such change would rather lead me to hardcode values of
>> DEBIAN
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 08:46 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > People have noticed that and already requested that we can call
> > > > arbitrary
> > > > targets of debian/rules with all the proper initialization done
> > > > precisely
> > > > for te
6 matches
Mail list logo
