Le mardi 16 octobre 2007 16:39, Andrea Righi a écrit : > Andrea Righi wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> The patch is in attachment. Note that i think i have write access to > >> trunk so if you think the patch is acceptable, i can check it in. > > > > Very good Geoffroy! I've applied your patch to my local repository and > > I'm rebuilding the deb packages. To be sure it didn't broke anything I'd > > like to test an installation before. If everything will go fine I'll let > > you know to proceed with the check in the trunk. > > > > Thanks, > > -Andrea > > Geoffroy, I've read the following mail only now. Does it means that I can > stop to test your patch right?
I guess so. Dann proved that my patch does not make much sense. Sorry about the noise. > > -Andrea > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Sisuite-devel] Debian support in trunk > Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:15:32 -0400 > From: Geoffroy Vallée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], sisuite-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Le lundi 15 octobre 2007 15:54, dann frazier a écrit : > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 11:31:24AM -0400, Geoffroy VALLEE wrote: > > > You have to write a script that cleans up the system and execute it at > > > package removal time. > > > > > > Also note that the "rule" file deals with the initrd-template in the > > > binary-arch section, which is the section for arch dependent stuff. We > > > may want to move that to binary-indep (even if it creates few issues)to > > > keep things clean. I have a patch for that if you want. > > > > If this is not meant for official debs, it doesn't really matter, but > > for official debs I used binary-arch for anything that is arch-specific > > at *build time*, even if it gets packaged into a .all.deb. > > > > The reason being that the difference between binary-arch and > > binary-indep seems to be to prevent build systems from having to > > rebuild files that are identical across systems. The current > > definition of these targets seems to be based on the assumption that > > anything that must be built on a specific architecture should only be > > installed on that architecture, where SystemImager is an obvious > > counterexample. > > Dann, > > Thanks for these details, i did not know that and i guess my patch is not > usefull then (i am still learning). :-) > > Regards, -- Geoffroy ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ sisuite-devel mailing list sisuite-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sisuite-devel
