On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:07:17PM +, Michael Ablassmeier wrote:
> >> what about `/etc/issue' to get this kind of information?
> >
> > Given that the sysadmin can and does edit it as they wish, that is
> > pretty useless.
>
> yes, but this might happen to `/etc/lsb-release' too.
The admin mi
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 03:11:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > /etc/issue is meant for the sysadmin to edit. It is free form
> > text. /etc/lsb-release is not.
>
> All conffiles are there for the sysadmin to edit.
Yes, but all conffiles ha
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> /etc/issue is meant for the sysadmin to edit. It is free form
> text. /etc/lsb-release is not.
All conffiles are there for the sysadmin to edit.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL P
* Lars Wirzenius:
> /etc/issue is meant for the sysadmin to edit. It is free form
> text. /etc/lsb-release is not.
Why is it in /etc and marked as a conffile? 8-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to, 2005-03-31 kello 21:07 +, Michael Ablassmeier kirjoitti:
> On 2005-03-31, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Given that the sysadmin can and does edit it as they wish, that is
> > pretty useless.
>
> yes, but this might happen to `/etc/lsb-release' too.
That would be classified
hi again,
On 2005-03-31, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to, 2005-03-31 kello 20:45 +, Michael Ablassmeier kirjoitti:
>> On 2005-03-31, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Any package that uses it is going to have to build-depend on the
>> > lsb-release package, which ha
to, 2005-03-31 kello 20:45 +, Michael Ablassmeier kirjoitti:
> On 2005-03-31, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any package that uses it is going to have to build-depend on the
> > lsb-release package, which has no dependencies (it is a bash shell
> > script and bash is required, so
hi,
On 2005-03-31, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any package that uses it is going to have to build-depend on the
> lsb-release package, which has no dependencies (it is a bash shell
> script and bash is required, so no explicit dependency needed) and is 88
> kilobytes installed. Not
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 10:31:19AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> martin f. krafft writes:
>
> > also sprach Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.31.0906 +0200]:
> >> DISTRIB := $(shell something-that-prints-DEBIAN-or-UBUNTU)
> >
> > Rene told me about lsb-release.
>
> Sounds cool.
also sprach Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.31.1031 +0200]:
>$ lsb_release
>LSB Version:n/a
>
> Hmm. Is n/a an abbreviation for debiaN/unstAble?
lsb_release -is
read the manpage. n/a means your system is not LSB conformant.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail
to, 2005-03-31 kello 10:31 +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen kirjoitti:
> Sounds cool.
>
>$ sudo apt-get install lsb-release
>$ lsb-release
>bash: lsb-release: command not found
>$ lsb_release
>LSB Version:n/a
>
> Hmm. Is n/a an abbreviation for debiaN/unstAble?
$ lsb_release -a
martin f. krafft writes:
> also sprach Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.31.0906 +0200]:
>> DISTRIB := $(shell something-that-prints-DEBIAN-or-UBUNTU)
>
> Rene told me about lsb-release.
Sounds cool.
$ sudo apt-get install lsb-release
$ lsb-release
bash: lsb-release: comman
to, 2005-03-31 kello 01:06 -0600, Peter Samuelson kirjoitti:
> [martin f krafft]
> > Parts of debian/rules are Ubuntu-specific (e.g. mv README.Debian
> > README.Ubuntu) and we would love to have that removed.
>
> The DISTRIB thing can be implemented quite easily without include files
> or anything
also sprach Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.31.0906 +0200]:
> DISTRIB := $(shell something-that-prints-DEBIAN-or-UBUNTU)
Rene told me about lsb-release.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :p
[martin f krafft]
> Parts of debian/rules are Ubuntu-specific (e.g. mv README.Debian
> README.Ubuntu) and we would love to have that removed.
The DISTRIB thing can be implemented quite easily without include files
or anything. Just say:
DISTRIB := $(shell something-that-prints-DEBIAN-or-UBUNT
Ian Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 16:56 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>
>> There is a way to cause make to re-read a Makefile: Makefile remaking.
>>
>> debian/rules: debian/rules.in
>> $(command that recreates debian/rules) --infile $< --outfile $@
>>
>> ... make
> It seems tha dpatch cannot be trivially used to patch debian/rules
> when the patch target is called implicitly. Note that it works if
> I invoke build and then binary separately. If I invoke binary, which
> depends on build, the patches are applied, but the debian/rules file
> is already read a
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 16:56 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> There is a way to cause make to re-read a Makefile: Makefile remaking.
>
> debian/rules: debian/rules.in
> $(command that recreates debian/rules) --infile $< --outfile $@
>
> ... make will reread the file after it has updated it.
doe
#include
* martin f krafft [Wed, Mar 30 2005, 04:00:21PM]:
> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.30.1529
> +0200]:
> > Well, I had never heard of anyone crazy enough to patch
> > debian/rules at runtime... You're the first.
>
> Yeah!
>
> We are packaging zope-c
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.30.1529
> +0200]:
>> Well, I had never heard of anyone crazy enough to patch
>> debian/rules at runtime... You're the first.
>
> Yeah!
>
> We are packaging zope-common from Ubuntu fo
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.30.1602
> +0200]:
> > I don't think so, other than using makefile includes.
>
> Uh, these are also only read once...
Change them BEFORE the ubuntu build.
--
"One disk to rule th
also sprach Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.30.1615 +0200]:
> Why not simply do a ifeq($(DISTRIB),Ubuntu) around that and define
> DISTRIB at the top of the Makefile? This way you can use the same
> debian/rules for Ubuntu and Debian and don't need to use evil
> patch systems.
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Parts of debian/rules are Ubuntu-specific (e.g. mv README.Debian
> README.Ubuntu) and we would love to have that removed.
Why not simply do a ifeq($(DISTRIB),Ubuntu) around that and define DISTRIB
at the top of the Makefile? This way you can use the sa
* Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050330 16:09]:
> Just out of curiosity: Why do you need to do this?
Sorry, was out of synch and just got your other mail.
Yours sincerely,
Alexander
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050330 14:08]:
> It seems tha dpatch cannot be trivially used to patch debian/rules
> when the patch target is called implicitly.
Just out of curiosity: Why do you need to do this?
Yours sincerely,
Alexander
signature.asc
Description: Digital signatur
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.30.1602
+0200]:
> I don't think so, other than using makefile includes.
Uh, these are also only read once...
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, martin f krafft wrote:
> but I was wondering if there is a better way...
I don't think so, other than using makefile includes.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.30.1529
+0200]:
> Well, I had never heard of anyone crazy enough to patch
> debian/rules at runtime... You're the first.
Yeah!
We are packaging zope-common from Ubuntu for Debian, patching it
with dpatch to make it easier late
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:29:41AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, martin f krafft wrote:
> > It seems tha dpatch cannot be trivially used to patch debian/rules
> > when the patch target is called implicitly. Note that it works if
> > I invoke build and then binary
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, martin f krafft wrote:
> It seems tha dpatch cannot be trivially used to patch debian/rules
> when the patch target is called implicitly. Note that it works if
> I invoke build and then binary separately. If I invoke binary, which
> depends on build, the patches are applied, bu
It seems tha dpatch cannot be trivially used to patch debian/rules
when the patch target is called implicitly. Note that it works if
I invoke build and then binary separately. If I invoke binary, which
depends on build, the patches are applied, but the debian/rules file
is already read and patches
31 matches
Mail list logo
