Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 10:21:06PM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote:
>> > it's completely identical to putting 13 into debian/compat
>>
>> Oh. So it is. I vaguely remember that using debian/compat and
>> "Build-Depends: debhelper" generated some lintian complaints.
>
> Using
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 10:21:06PM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote:
> > it's completely identical to putting 13 into debian/compat
>
> Oh. So it is. I vaguely remember that using debian/compat and
> "Build-Depends: debhelper" generated some lintian complaints.
Using debian/compat and "Build-Depends:
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> it's completely identical to putting 13 into debian/compat
Oh. So it is. I vaguely remember that using debian/compat and
"Build-Depends: debhelper" generated some lintian complaints. I don't
see those anymore, though. Is doing something like that frowned-upon?
I'd
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 11:15:30AM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote:
> Hi. This probably has been covered before
It wasn't, but it's completely identical to putting 13 into debian/compat,
which never supported >= either.
> This works fine if you're building for Debian/sid in 2022. It does not
> work in
On July 30, 2022 6:15:30 PM UTC, Dima Kogan wrote:
>Hi. This probably has been covered before, but it's so consistently
>annoying that I'd like to bring it up again.
>
>Currently the Debian build tools strongly encourage packages to have
>exactly
>
> Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (= 13)
>
Hi. This probably has been covered before, but it's so consistently
annoying that I'd like to bring it up again.
Currently the Debian build tools strongly encourage packages to have
exactly
Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (= 13)
This works fine if you're building for Debian/sid in 2022. It
6 matches
Mail list logo
