On Mi, Jan 06, 2010 at 08:32:45 (CET), Russ Allbery wrote:
I am personally not horribly fond of a package building differently on
Debian or Ubuntu via only this mechanism, though. I think it violates a
very important invariant: the same package with the same version number
will have the
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Anyway, to avoid modifying debian/control directly, it's easy to add an
additional substvar (ubuntu:Browser?):
debian/control:
Depends: [...], iceweasel | ${ubuntu:Browser}
Doesn't that leave a dangling | if you're building for Debian?
I'd suggest in debian/control
On 07/01/10 at 03:08 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Anyway, to avoid modifying debian/control directly, it's easy to add an
additional substvar (ubuntu:Browser?):
debian/control:
Depends: [...], iceweasel | ${ubuntu:Browser}
Doesn't that leave a dangling | if you're
[ Don't hesitate to redirect me to an already discussed
solution/thread/FAQ/anything if necessary, but I didn't find anything
related in recent (months) debian-devel. ]
Hi folks (and happy new year to all DD),
A minor issue (reported by Nick Ellery) with debian vs. ubuntu package
is that the
Xavier Roche wrote:
[..]
(1) Not a very common case, which can be left as is (ie. patch all
further control files)
(2) We may want to have a namespaced control fields, such as:
(3) Namespace specific packages ?
(4) Ubuntu-specific optional control file ?
(5) Something totally
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:36:33AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
This is the only reason why a patch is needed for all releases on
ubuntu. The patch (http://patches.ubuntu.com/h/httrack/) is basically
a one-liner in the control file (plus changelog and friends):
-Depends: ${shlibs:Depends},
Am Dienstag, den 05.01.2010, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Xavier Roche:
[ Don't hesitate to redirect me to an already discussed
solution/thread/FAQ/anything if necessary, but I didn't find anything
related in recent (months) debian-devel. ]
Hi folks (and happy new year to all DD),
A minor issue
AFAIUI this is the reason why virtual packages have been introduced.
You cannot - and definitely should not - alternatively depend on each
and every webbrowser in Debian (or ubuntu), but every webbrowser
should do Provides: x-www-browser. So all you have to do is depend
on the default
Hi,
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Xavier Roche wrote:
This is the only reason why a patch is needed for all releases on
ubuntu. The patch (http://patches.ubuntu.com/h/httrack/) is
basically a one-liner in the control file (plus changelog and
friends):
-Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, webhttrack-common,
Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
What do you, folks, think of this case ?
I would merge the change even if the package doesn't exist.
What about lintian crying in the rain ? More seriously, can we assume
that we'll never have package name collisions (ie. foo, if exist on
two distributions, are
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 02:00:46PM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
What do you, folks, think of this case ?
I would merge the change even if the package doesn't exist.
What about lintian crying in the rain ? More seriously, can we
assume that we'll never have package
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Xavier Roche wrote:
Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
What do you, folks, think of this case ?
I would merge the change even if the package doesn't exist.
What about lintian crying in the rain ?
What tag does it generate?
AFAIK lintian has no knowledge of what package exist or
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Xavier Roche wrote:
Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
What do you, folks, think of this case ?
I would merge the change even if the package doesn't exist.
What about lintian crying in the rain ?
What tag
On 05/01/10 at 13:56 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
But patches are not allowed to modify the debian directory so that only
works for upstream changes.
That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can
patch debian/control at unpack time.
And in both cases, you are free to
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 05/01/10 at 13:56 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
But patches are not allowed to modify the debian directory so that only
works for upstream changes.
That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can
patch debian/control at
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Xavier Roche wrote:
What about lintian crying in the rain ?
What tag does it generate?
AFAIK lintian has no knowledge of what package exist or not. And even if
it does, you can override the tag justifying that it exists in
Russ Allbery wrote :
I'm pretty sure Lintian doesn't care.
Yep, but not debcheck (as Paul Wise corrected), which would produce
another warning
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
What do you, folks, think of this case ?
I would merge the change even if the package doesn't exist.
What about lintian crying in the rain ? More seriously, can we assume
that we'll never have package name collisions (ie. foo, if exist on
two distributions, are guaranteed to be the same
That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can
patch debian/control at unpack time.
And in both cases, you are free to modify it manually during the build.
Err, what? debian/control modified during build? Sure not.
--
bye, Joerg
mechanix anyone from the MIA team around?
On 05/01/10 at 21:39 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can
patch debian/control at unpack time.
And in both cases, you are free to modify it manually during the build.
Err, what? debian/control modified during build? Sure not.
Xavier Roche ro...@httrack.com writes:
Russ Allbery wrote :
I'm pretty sure Lintian doesn't care.
Yep, but not debcheck (as Paul Wise corrected), which would produce
another warning
Yeah, but debcheck produces warnings about lots of things that aren't
really problems, just things it doesn't
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 05/01/10 at 21:39 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can
patch debian/control at unpack time.
And in both cases, you are free to modify it manually during the build.
Err,
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:52:46PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 05/01/10 at 21:39 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can
patch debian/control at unpack time.
And in both
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:39:40PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
I remember, some time ago, there has been some discussion about treating
ubuntu as a pseudo-arch, so that we could do something like:
Depends: foo | bar [ubuntu]
I also remember this proposal was rejected, or hostaged to say the
On 05/01/10 at 16:31 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:52:46PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 05/01/10 at 21:39 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can
patch
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
Modifying the source stanza is debian/control is clearly a bad idea. But
for binary stanzas, debian/control is only a template from which
DEBIAN/control is generated. If tools get information about binary
packages using debian/control, then it's
26 matches
Mail list logo
