I demand that martin f krafft may or may not have written... > also sprach Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.04.12.2222 > +0200]: >> It makes sense for software developers to have their own ./debian >> directory so that they can use debian/rules binary to compile and test >> their software while developing it.
> Huh? Why not just use ./Makefile? I use both in gxine: debian/rules to get a "known good" version of the package built and installed, then Makefile (with modified source) to build a modified executable which can use the installed files. >> What does not make a lot of sense is to release the .tar.gz with the >> ./debian directory, as Steve Halasz said, it's perfectly valid to have it >> in CVS the important point would be to convince them not to include it in >> the release. > I disagree. ./debian is the domain of the Debian maintainer, not of the > upstream. Unless you are developing software *for* *Debian* (native), there > is no reason why you should bother with ./debian at all. That's a matter for the Debian maintainer and upstream. All that I can say is that I've marked bugs as fixed in the Debian changelog without there being any complaint... -- | Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at | sarge, | Northumberland | youmustbejoking | RISC OS | Toon Army | demon co uk | Retrocomputing: a PC card in a Risc PC Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
