Benjamin,
Answers below:
On 17. 11. 15 21:20, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Hi Nicholas,
I have a few questions about that applied patch:
1) Why do you copy all bash completions to BC_BUILD_DIR? I see no
reason for that additional step.
The problem is that the scripts in the
On 17. 11. 15 22:43, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Benjamin,
Answers below:
On 17. 11. 15 21:20, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Hi Nicholas,
I have a few questions about that applied patch:
...
3) Why do you create the symlinks via debian/links instead of the
Makefile where you do all the
Hi Nicholas,
Am Mittwoch, den 11.11.2015, 10:04 + schrieb Nicholas Bamber:
> On 10/11/15 12:17, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> > On 10/11/15 11:59, James McCoy wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:56:26AM +, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I think changing Makefiles
On 10/11/15 12:17, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
On 10/11/15 11:59, James McCoy wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:56:26AM +, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
On the contrary, I think changing Makefiles is much more appropriate.
Installing the completion files in the right place under the right name
tag 804492 + patch
thanks
The attached patch is the simplest, most simple minded (and the easiest
diff to read). It consists only of symbolic link declarations in
debian/links and modifications to scripts/*.bash_completion .
There are other ways of approaching this that would have less
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:56:26AM +, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> There are other ways of approaching this that would have less dependence on
> the use of symbolic links. I certainly would suggest that this heavy use of
> symbolic links should be transitional, but some use is neccessary since the
On 10/11/15 11:59, James McCoy wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:56:26AM +, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
On the contrary, I think changing Makefiles is much more appropriate.
Installing the completion files in the right place under the right name
should happen regardless of whether this is
7 matches
Mail list logo
