Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> On 7 May 1998, Falk Hueffner wrote:
Dale> Whithout meaning to sound too negative, I want to caution
Dale> against such patch and fill design. Ian J. worked very hard (and
Dale> was very successful in my opinion) to design the current
--On Thu, May 7, 1998 10:38 am -0400 "Dale Scheetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> WRT [Falk's] suggestion above, I don't think that developers can/should
edit
> the .dsc file (its check sum is computed by dpkg and provided in the
> changes file for dinstall to verify the components).
>
> The corr
On 7 May 1998, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It would be a great idea to have source dependencies. I compile all
> > sources on my debian mirror and most fail because of missing
> > files. One then has to search the package and install that before
> > compilin
Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be a great idea to have source dependencies. I compile all
> sources on my debian mirror and most fail because of missing
> files. One then has to search the package and install that before
> compiling again.
A very simple way to improve in this ar
Here are my thoughts:
"Jules Bean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 1:57 pm -0400 "Dale Scheetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Keep source in Source Format and use the .deb files for what they were
> > intended, the distribution of "binary" components.
>
> I have little d
On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 08:43:20PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> the qmail-src package works very nicely (i tried it out on a 'spare'
> machine recently - qmail's quite nice...if it wasn't for the license
> and attitude problems i'd be quite tempted to switch to it) and the
> build-qmail script cou
On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 12:32:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The postinst for the .deb will compile the source, install the .deb, and
> > clean up after itself if you so desire for a -src package...
>
> Well, I don't plan to do that. I think it would be too much for a -src
> package.
>
> I
On Fri, 1 May 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What is your point? The .deb packaging of source doesn't deal with source
> > dependencies any better than the current source package.
>
> Sure it does. You put the dependencies on the Depends: line of the
> con
I <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure: we do need to fix our source packaging system. I don't
> agree with that very strongly.
Argh.. bad editting on my part.
I *do* agree very strongly that we need to fix our source packaging
system.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> More specifically, I don't think that late in the frozen stage is
> the right time to introduce a new package format requirement for
> hamm.
Nor do I, which is why I've been avoiding this discussion.
--
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
> > Sure it does. You put the dependencies on the Depends: line of the
> > control file.
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can do that in the .dsc file too, but it suffers from the same
> problem, i.e. what to do with source dependencies like svgalibg1-dev,
> which are arch-specific wh
[ Still not wanting to get into the discussion, honest, just making
random points ]
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What is your point? The .deb packaging of source doesn't deal with
> > source dependencies any better than the current source package.
>
> Sure it does. You put the
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is your point? The .deb packaging of source doesn't deal with source
> dependencies any better than the current source package.
Sure it does. You put the dependencies on the Depends: line of the
control file.
> > > There is no current declared metho
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As to source dependency problems, it is my understanding that all the
> > packages in the main distribution can be built using only packages from
> > main.
>
> That's a lot of packages. I've used .deb packages
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Please think very hard about the benefits of our current system
> > before advocating a replacement for it.
>
> The pine-src package will not replace the already existing pine
> source in the "source" directory.
I was not talking about pine-src, as I
On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 12:32:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> > The postinst for the .deb will compile the source, install the .deb, and
> > clean up after itself if you so desire for a -src package...
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 1 May 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Please think very hard about the benefits of our current system before
> advocating a replacement for it.
The pine-src package will not replace the already existing pine source
in the "source" directory.
Moreover, there will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> As to source dependency problems, it is my understanding that all the
> packages in the main distribution can be built using only packages from
> main. Given that that doesn't tell you which packages those are, and that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> The postinst for the .deb will compile the source, install the .deb, and
> clean up after itself if you so desire for a -src package...
Well, I don't plan to do that. I think it would be too much for a -src
packa
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As to source dependency problems, it is my understanding that all the
> packages in the main distribution can be built using only packages from
> main.
That's a lot of packages. I've used .deb packages which include source on
little dinky machines with on
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Retrieval of source from archives is usually done "by hand" but any such
> bulk retrieval should be easy to manage with a script. I take the lack of
> a script to indicate the current relative lack of need. Anyone is welcome
> to prove me wrong by writing
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What we are talking about here is "repackaging" the source tree into a
> > .deb file. Very undesirable as it defeats all the good points of the
> > current source package system.
>
> Yet our current source packa
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 05:09:18PM -0300, Igor Grobman wrote:
> Here is an idea. Why don't we make an installer package for these
> source-only packages. It would work the same way as netscape installer,
> except it would compile the binary as well as retrieve the source tarball
> from the net (o
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 02:16:12PM -0400, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
> hmm would it satisfy things to make a binary dist of the original files
> and of the debainized files...and litterally have it unpack the "real"
> pine and then run patch on it with a diff made agains t the debianized
> binaries?
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 01:57:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I agree with Ian. The .deb file format is expressly for the distribution
> of configured executables (binaries for short). Using this format for
> source distribution is simply asking for trouble.
>
> Maybe we need a tarball that cont
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 05:19:00PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Ian, why do you still think that qmail-src should not exist?
> Are you the only one?
>
> [ I intent to package pine-src ].
I use qmail-src and I would use pine-src. You are right that at least in
hamm this is the best
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > We do it this way for both DFSG Free as well as for contrib and non-free
> > software, so why make an exeption in this case?
>
> Because we want to make easier the retrieving of *certain* source files.
> As easy as it is currently to retrieve binary .
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What we are talking about here is "repackaging" the source tree into a
> .deb file. Very undesirable as it defeats all the good points of the
> current source package system.
Yet our current source package system needs work. It doesn't give much
of a clue
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree with Ian. The .deb file format is expressly for the distribution
> > of configured executables (binaries for short). Using this format for
> > source distribution is simply asking for trouble.
>
> Um...
Here is an idea. Why don't we make an installer package for these source-only
packages. It would work the same way as netscape installer, except it would
compile the binary as well as retrieve the source tarball from the net (or
require user to have a tarball). I believe that will remove the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
> [ ... ]
> Any thoughts?
Very nice... but *not for hamm*, as I said in my first mail.
I was just talking about *hamm*, the distribution that
will not change anymore once it will be released soon.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Ian. The .deb file format is expressly for the distribution
> of configured executables (binaries for short). Using this format for
> source distribution is simply asking for trouble.
Um... so does this mean we have to retract the kernel-sourc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
> hmm would it satisfy things to make a binary dist of the original files and of
> the debainized files...and litterally have it unpack the "real" pine and then
> run
> patch on it with a diff made agains t the debi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I agree with Ian. The .deb file format is expressly for the distribution
> of configured executables (binaries for short). Using this format for
> source distribution is simply asking for trouble.
I don't see any troub
hmm would it satisfy things to make a binary dist of the original files and of
the debainized files...and litterally have it unpack the "real" pine and then
run
patch on it with a diff made agains t the debianized binaries?
(I dunno that patch will do binaries...but you get the idea
anyway...)
yes
--On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 1:57 pm -0400 "Dale Scheetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Keep source in Source Format and use the .deb files for what they were
> intended, the distribution of "binary" components.
I have little doubt you're right. I know none of the background.
But... I think it would b
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> I have just read Bug #14355, in which Ian Jackson said about qmail-src:
>
> This package has no reason to exist and should be withdrawn. We
> distribute source as .dsc/.diff.gz/.orig.tar.gz.
>
> Well, this p
ng to be done for hamm, I don't see really a
reason why -src packages should be "forbidden".
Ian, why do you still think that qmail-src should not exist?
Are you the only one?
[ I intent to package pine-src ].
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATU
38 matches
Mail list logo
