On 07/06/11 14:16, Vincent Danjean wrote:
On 07/06/2011 14:36, Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:54:23PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
On 05/06/2011 07:39, Vincent Bernat wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What I do is use upstream provided tarballs,
On 05/06/2011 07:39, Vincent Bernat wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What I do is use upstream provided tarballs, then put aside
autotools-generated files, then autogenerate myself, and in the clean
rule put back the upstream-provided files (because I want
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:54:23PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
On 05/06/2011 07:39, Vincent Bernat wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What I do is use upstream provided tarballs, then put aside
autotools-generated files, then autogenerate myself, and in
On 07/06/2011 14:36, Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:54:23PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
On 05/06/2011 07:39, Vincent Bernat wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What I do is use upstream provided tarballs, then put aside
autotools-generated files,
On 11-06-07 at 12:54pm, Vincent Danjean wrote:
On 05/06/2011 07:39, Vincent Bernat wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What I do is use upstream provided tarballs, then put aside
autotools-generated files, then autogenerate myself, and in the
clean rule
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What I do is use upstream provided tarballs, then put aside
autotools-generated files, then autogenerate myself, and in the clean
rule put back the upstream-provided files (because I want not only
minimal required build routines
I have noticed several times package changes like the following (from
cairomm entering testing today):
* debian/control:
- Drop build dependencies on doxygen and graphviz, since upstream
now ships the generated documentation
Definitely not the prefered thing to do, imo.
Do
On 11-06-05 at 05:39am, Vincent Bernat wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What I do is use upstream provided tarballs, then put aside
autotools-generated files, then autogenerate myself, and in the clean
rule put back the upstream-provided files (because I
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 11-06-05 at 05:39am, Vincent Bernat wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What I do is use upstream provided tarballs, then put aside
autotools-generated files, then autogenerate myself, and in the clean
rule
On 11-06-05 at 09:48am, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 11-06-05 at 05:39am, Vincent Bernat wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What I do is use upstream provided tarballs, then put aside
Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 05.06.2011, 11:03 +0200 schrieb Joerg Jaspert:
You need to ensure that (package in main. contrib/non-free are
different)
- you can build everything you ship inside main,
- the thing you ship in your package is what the shipped source will
end up producing when
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:49:14 +0200, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
if I do regenerate the files for shipping (or don’t ship them in the
binary packages), is it ok to leave the upstream-generated files in
the .orig.tar.gz, even though I have no hard
[Joachim Breitner]
if I do regenerate the files for shipping (or don’t ship them in the
binary packages), is it ok to leave the upstream-generated files in
the .orig.tar.gz, even though I have no hard guarantee that they are
built from these sources (assuming I have no reason to assume that
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 11-06-05 at 09:48am, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 11-06-05 at 05:39am, Vincent Bernat wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
What I do is use upstream
Hi fellow hackers,
I have noticed several times package changes like the following (from
cairomm entering testing today):
* debian/control:
- Drop build dependencies on doxygen and graphviz, since upstream
now ships the generated documentation
Feels wrong to me to redistribute
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
I have noticed several times package changes like the following (from
cairomm entering testing today):
* debian/control:
- Drop build dependencies on doxygen and graphviz, since upstream
now ships the generated documentation
Feels
Am Samstag, den 04.06.2011, 14:10 +0200 schrieb Gergely Nagy:
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
I have noticed several times package changes like the following (from
cairomm entering testing today):
* debian/control:
- Drop build dependencies on doxygen and graphviz, since
* Benjamin Drung bdr...@debian.org [110604 14:22]:
It's better to build the pre-generated files from source in case you
need to modify the source. It's easier to just modify for example
configure.ac instead of modifying it and figuring out how to rebuild the
pre-generated files, especially
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes:
* Benjamin Drung bdr...@debian.org [110604 14:22]:
It's better to build the pre-generated files from source in case you
need to modify the source. It's easier to just modify for example
configure.ac instead of modifying it and figuring out how to
Benjamin Drung bdr...@debian.org writes:
Am Samstag, den 04.06.2011, 14:10 +0200 schrieb Gergely Nagy:
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
I have noticed several times package changes like the following (from
cairomm entering testing today):
* debian/control:
- Drop build
On 11-06-04 at 11:29am, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes:
* Benjamin Drung bdr...@debian.org [110604 14:22]:
It's better to build the pre-generated files from source in case
you need to modify the source. It's easier to just modify for
example configure.ac
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 14:10 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
(Provided that said action does not cause unwanted side effects, like
the documentation being out of date, because upstream forgot to
regenerate them before distribution - but that falls under the upstream
to not be a moron above ;)
I see
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:54:00PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 14:10 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
(Provided that said action does not cause unwanted side effects, like
the documentation being out of date, because upstream forgot to
regenerate them before
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 16:16 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:54:00PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 14:10 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
(Provided that said action does not cause unwanted side effects, like
the documentation being out of date,
I'm leaning towards regenerating all mechanically generated files
(including autotools stuff). I think it helps us live up to our
promises (SC items 1-4, DFSG item 2).
As an example of what I mean; the game naev was proposed to be added
to Debian. Looking at the images I noted that some of them
25 matches
Mail list logo
