Hi,
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
3) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build' if a Build-Options field is set in debian/control
of the source package specifying that this target is supported.[3]
FYI with the recent
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:59:15PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 12:09:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:15:37AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build'
Hi,
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
Has the following been considered:
- adding a command-line option for dpkg-buildpackage to explicitly
enable particular build-features (overriding the feature in the
source package).
This has not been suggested yet, I'm not opposed to the idea
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 15:59:15 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 12:09:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:15:37AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build' by
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
The Technical Committee has sufficient authority to address this
question under any of ยง6.1.{1,2,4,5}. If you prefer, we could also ask
for a referral from the policy editors or the dpkg maintainers, to
eliminate any question of supermajority
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Any chance you can elaborate on what didn't work well? I believe this
will work robustly for packages whose debian/rules is a policy-compliant
makefile, and I think that the handful of packages which don't could
reasonably required to, at minimum,
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [110606 22:05]:
Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org writes:
Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is
think is sensible.
Policy already requires this. The only package in the archive for which
this is not already the case is
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:56:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the target using
'make -qn'.[1]
Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a
On 06/06/11 at 13:35 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 06/06/11 at 10:29 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place
of 'debian/rules build' by
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 06/06/11 at 13:35 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Happens; do you have any recollection of what the failures were
from? [Just trying to make sure that they were failures which were
fixable, and not some kind of unforeseen systematic problem.]
No,
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 02:15:37 -0700, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot
options:
1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of
'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes:
The proposal 3) (which is implemented in dpkg as of today) was devised
following a discussion in Debian policy bug #218893 as a compromise
solution that was agreeable to everyone, then a patch to dpkg was
written (bug #229357). For
Hi Bill,
(Sending this to 629...@bugs.debian.org, which is the cloned bug actually
assigned to the TC...)
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:06:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
The proposal 3) (which is implemented in dpkg as of today) was devised
following a discussion in Debian policy bug #218893
13 matches
Mail list logo
