On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:19:48AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* martin f krafft [Sun, Oct 17 2004, 10:35:21PM]:
Apart, yes, why not delete dh_* calls?
Because you need to remember them again when you need them or look
around. Okay, it makes no difference when the day ends.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:19:48AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* martin f krafft [Sun, Oct 17 2004, 10:35:21PM]:
Apart, yes, why not delete dh_* calls?
Because you need to remember them again when you need them or look
around. Okay, it makes no difference when the day ends.
#include hallo.h
* martin f krafft [Sun, Oct 17 2004, 10:35:21PM]:
Apart, yes, why not delete dh_* calls?
Because you need to remember them again when you need them or look
around. Okay, it makes no difference when the day ends.
Regards,
Eduard.
--
stockholm Overfiend: why dont you flame him?
#include hallo.h
* martin f krafft [Sun, Oct 17 2004, 10:35:21PM]:
Apart, yes, why not delete dh_* calls?
Because you need to remember them again when you need them or look
around. Okay, it makes no difference when the day ends.
Regards,
Eduard.
--
stockholm Overfiend: why dont you flame him?
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 11:45:34AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Magnus Therning [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.16.2359 +0200]:
Ah, cool. I am not sure why, but for some reason I thought dh-make was
the deprecated one. I just made an attempt at packaging a python lib,
and I failed
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.17.2031 +0200]:
That isn't an accurate description of debmake, as should be clear
from its package description. The debmake package contains debstd,
which is a monolithic program occupying roughly the same space as
debhelper, and deb-make,
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 09:35:32PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.17.2031 +0200]:
That isn't an accurate description of debmake, as should be clear
from its package description. The debmake package contains debstd,
which is a monolithic
#include hallo.h
* martin f krafft [Sun, Oct 17 2004, 11:45:34AM]:
And about dh-make... stop using it anyway. Either switch to using
cdbs, or get a hang of packaging so that you don't have to call this
I disagree. cdbs sucks when it comes to some advanced extensions that
its creators did not
also sprach Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.17.2004 +0200]:
Do you really think that deleting dh_ calls (instead of commenting them)
is wise?
Did I say delete dh_* calls? I said to delete *.ex files.
Apart, yes, why not delete dh_* calls?
--
Please do not CC me when replying to
* Eduard Bloch [Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:04:21 +0200]:
Do you really think that deleting dh_ calls (instead of commenting them)
is wise?
then a huge flame may be in place, since it's what is always recommended
here in d-mentors: remove commented and unused calls to dh_*.
--
Adeodato Simó
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 11:59:50PM +0200, Magnus Therning wrote:
Ah, cool. I am not sure why, but for some reason I thought dh-make was
the deprecated one. I just made an attempt at packaging a python lib,
and I failed miserably. :-) I'll just forget about debmake's existance
from now on then.
also sprach Magnus Therning [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.16.2359 +0200]:
Ah, cool. I am not sure why, but for some reason I thought dh-make was
the deprecated one. I just made an attempt at packaging a python lib,
and I failed miserably. :-) I'll just forget about debmake's existance
from now on
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 11:45:34AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Magnus Therning [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.16.2359 +0200]:
Ah, cool. I am not sure why, but for some reason I thought dh-make was
the deprecated one. I just made an attempt at packaging a python lib,
and I failed
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.17.2031 +0200]:
That isn't an accurate description of debmake, as should be clear
from its package description. The debmake package contains debstd,
which is a monolithic program occupying roughly the same space as
debhelper, and deb-make,
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 09:35:32PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.17.2031 +0200]:
That isn't an accurate description of debmake, as should be clear
from its package description. The debmake package contains debstd,
which is a monolithic
#include hallo.h
* martin f krafft [Sun, Oct 17 2004, 11:45:34AM]:
And about dh-make... stop using it anyway. Either switch to using
cdbs, or get a hang of packaging so that you don't have to call this
I disagree. cdbs sucks when it comes to some advanced extensions that
its creators did not
also sprach Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.17.2004 +0200]:
Do you really think that deleting dh_ calls (instead of commenting them)
is wise?
Did I say delete dh_* calls? I said to delete *.ex files.
Apart, yes, why not delete dh_* calls?
--
Please do not CC me when replying to
* Eduard Bloch [Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:04:21 +0200]:
Do you really think that deleting dh_ calls (instead of commenting them)
is wise?
then a huge flame may be in place, since it's what is always recommended
here in d-mentors: remove commented and unused calls to dh_*.
--
Adeodato Simó
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 11:59:50PM +0200, Magnus Therning wrote:
Ah, cool. I am not sure why, but for some reason I thought dh-make was
the deprecated one. I just made an attempt at packaging a python lib,
and I failed miserably. :-) I'll just forget about debmake's existance
from now on then.
Is one deprecated in favour of the other, or is it simply another place
where Debian offers more options than any other distribution?
/M
--
Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://magnus.therning.org/
Mathematics is the queen of sciences, and the
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Magnus Therning wrote:
Is one deprecated in favour of the other, or is it simply another place
where Debian offers more options than any other distribution?
Yes, you can consider debmake deprecated.
I have the intention to kill debmake some day. Until then, I'll
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 06:12:07PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Magnus Therning wrote:
Is one deprecated in favour of the other, or is it simply another place
where Debian offers more options than any other distribution?
Yes, you can consider debmake deprecated.
I have the
Is one deprecated in favour of the other, or is it simply another place
where Debian offers more options than any other distribution?
/M
--
Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://magnus.therning.org/
Mathematics is the queen of sciences, and the
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Magnus Therning wrote:
Is one deprecated in favour of the other, or is it simply another place
where Debian offers more options than any other distribution?
Yes, you can consider debmake deprecated.
I have the intention to kill debmake some day. Until then, I'll
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 06:12:07PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Magnus Therning wrote:
Is one deprecated in favour of the other, or is it simply another place
where Debian offers more options than any other distribution?
Yes, you can consider debmake deprecated.
I have the
25 matches
Mail list logo
