2015-10-10 11:23 GMT+02:00 Michael Biebl <[email protected]>: > Hi Jérémy, > > thanks for the patch. I think the general idea is ok, but see for > comments below: > > > Am 10.10.2015 um 10:24 schrieb Jérémy Lal: > > --- epiphany-3.18.0/debian/rules.old 2015-10-10 10:12:24.716438919 +0200 > > +++ epiphany-3.18.0/debian/rules 2015-10-10 10:16:28.467707332 +0200 > > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ > > && mv epiphany-browser.sh epiphany-browser > > > > binary-post-install/epiphany-browser-data:: > > - sed -i s/@PACKAGEVERSION@/$(DEB_VERSION)/ debian/branding.conf.in > > - sed -i s/@DISTROID@/`lsb_release -is`/ debian/branding.conf.in > > - sed -i s/@DISTROVERSION@/`lsb_release -rs`/ debian/ > branding.conf.in \ > > - && mv debian/branding.conf.in > debian/epiphany-browser-data/usr/share/epiphany-browser/branding.conf > > + sed -e s/@PACKAGEVERSION@/$(DEB_VERSION)/ \ > > + -e s/@DISTROID@/`lsb_release -is`/ \ > > + -e s/@DISTROVERSION@/`lsb_release -rs`/ debian/ > branding.conf.in \ > > + debian/branding.conf.in > > debian/epiphany-browser-data/usr/share/epiphany-browser/branding.conf > > Why is debian/branding.conf.in specified twice here? Won't this > duplicate the entries? > > Did a test-build, and indeed the result looks like: > $ cat debian/epiphany-browser-data/usr/share/epiphany-browser/branding.conf > [User Agent] > Vendor=Debian > VendorSub=unstable > VendorComment=3.18.0-2 > [User Agent] > Vendor=Debian > VendorSub=unstable > VendorComment=3.18.0-2
Oh ! Indeed, just a stupid mistake. Jérémy
