On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > I have to say i verry rarely do not use debuild. And 99% of the
> > > exceptions are calling debian/rules clean.
> >
> > Precisely, debuild does not use dpkg-buildpackage, but call d
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Plus a note in policy clarifying that debian/rules is only an
> interface for dpkg-buildpackage but not users.
Right. If you want to make this a rule, then we should discuss it, reach
a consensus, document and publicize the change, and so forth.
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I have to say i verry rarely do not use debuild. And 99% of the
> > exceptions are calling debian/rules clean.
>
> Precisely, debuild does not use dpkg-buildpackage, but call debian/rules
> directly.
This has been fixed already. It calls dpkg-buildpa
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:03:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> >>> I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
> >>> betwe
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
>>> I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
>>> between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
>>> Such change wou
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> >> I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
> >> between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
>
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
>> between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
>> Such change would rather lead me to hardcode values of
>> DEBIAN
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 08:46 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > People have noticed that and already requested that we can call
> > > > arbitrary
> > > > targets of debian/rules with all the proper initialization done
> > > > precisely
> > > > for te
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > People have noticed that and already requested that we can call arbitrary
> > > targets of debian/rules with all the proper initialization done precisely
> > > for test purpose during packaging work (see #477916).
> >
> > I must say, I really do not
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we're already on that path for quite some time. If your package
> uses DEB_(BUILD|HOST)_* variables, you rely on dpkg-buildpackage setting
> them for you (with dpkg-architecture).
I most certainly do not rely on dpkg-buildpackage setting anyth
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Because they want that anyone can easily rebuild it with that option
> > disabled?
>
> That is already supported using the existing DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS mechanism.
>
> I may be confused about your mental model here, but it seems like you're
> moving rules
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This doesn't make sense to me. The maintainer writes debian/rules; why
>> would they need to change Build-Options in debian/control to enable
>> anything about the build?
> Because they want that anyone can
Hi,
thanks for your answers.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Even if there's only two things, the fact is that the package maintainer
> > wants not only to decide what is supported but he might also want to
> > enable some features...
>
> Did you think about ha
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Even if there's only two things, the fact is that the package maintainer
> wants not only to decide what is supported but he might also want to
> enable some features... if you check the case that I listed above, we
> also want to use Build-Options to
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 07:19:16PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> El 10/07/08 18:02 Raphael Hertzog escribió:
> > Hello,
> >
> > in order to fix #229357 I decided to add a new Build-Options field.
> > I modified Dpkg::BuildOptions to parse this field and DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.
> > And I added support f
15 matches
Mail list logo
