Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by
dh_make?
The question is because I discovered that the script I used to create
all the 90 debian packages I maintain (not in the Debian dist, it's in
the software house I work for) are built incorrectly, because I used a
script
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by
dh_make?
Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
If people use it and someone is willing to maintain it, it will continue
to exist in the distribution, as it happens with every
On 04 Apr 2002 08:27:05 -0300
Daniel Ruoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by
dh_make?
Because many packages still depend on it.
regards,
junichi
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
But the question is... shouldn't it be?
Em Qui, 2002-04-04 às 08:50, Santiago Vila escreveu:
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by
dh_make?
Because it's not. debhelper
Daniel Ruoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
But the question is... shouldn't it be?
NO! debmake was deeply flawed in its interface and implementation,
and were debhelper to be a drop-in replacement it would always be
fighting
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:42:28PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Santiago Vila wrote:
Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
But the question is... shouldn't it be?
They have different design goals. Apart from anything else, debstd is
monolithic while debhelper
Hi.
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:49:44PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
On 04 Apr 2002 08:27:05 -0300
Daniel Ruoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by
dh_make?
Because many packages still depend on it.
Are there any statistics
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 21:08:11 +0200,
Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake,
how many use debhelper and how many use something completely different?
$ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends debmake Sources | egrep '^Package' | wc
92 184
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:08:11PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:49:44PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
On 04 Apr 2002 08:27:05 -0300
Daniel Ruoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by
dh_make?
Because many
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:36:58AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake,
how many use debhelper and how many use something completely different?
$ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends debmake Sources | egrep '^Package' | wc
92 184
Oohara Yuuma [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit:
Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake,
how many use debhelper and how many use something completely different?
$ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends debmake Sources | egrep '^Package' | wc
92 1841519
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
But the question is... shouldn't it be?
debhelper used to include a dh_debstd that did more or less the same
thing as debstd. After a few years I noticed that noone had ever used
it, and removed it.
--
Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake.
If people use it and someone is willing to maintain it, it will continue
to exist in the distribution, as it happens with every other package.
I think that if you survey the set of packages that comtinjue to use
debstd,
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:19:41 +0900
Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oohara Yuuma [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit:
Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake,
how many use debhelper and how many use something completely different?
$ grep-dctrl -F
14 matches
Mail list logo
