Please read again my previous mail before doing reply again. In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on "Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:39:02 +0900", with "Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh", Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit: > > > # to compile with debugging information: > > # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" > > # > > # Note: you can't do it by > > # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild > > # because it won't work. Shell variables are not > > # succeeded to sub-process. > > > > But it seems to me that you repeated to say the same thing > > in his comment. > > Am I alone in thinking that > > SHELL_VARIABLE="something" && script > > will not pass the SHELL_VARIABLE to the script ? No, it was written in my previous mail already, and oohara already explained his intention for the first place. You are NOT the one who find the top secret in this world! sano> Oohara already explained his intent: sano> sano> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sano> on Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:44:42 +0900 (JST), sano> on Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh, sano> Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: sano> sano> > debian/rules says: sano> > | # to compile with debugging information: sano> > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" sano> > | # (this won't work: sano> > | # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild) sano> > Note the word "won't". Can't you read or understand the word "WON'T" in this comment ? sano> So, maybe he can improve his comment, as something like: sano> sano> # to compile with debugging information: sano> # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" sano> # sano> # Note: you can't do it by sano> # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild sano> # because it won't work. Shell variables are not sano> # succeeded to sub-process. sano> sano> But it seems to me that you repeated to say the same thing sano> in his comment. > I've accompanied myself with a testing script to > check that behavior as well, have you tried running it? Unnecessary. Since it has been explained in the comment where you criticized before you kindly teach that (already known) thing for us all. > > Can you please explain me what I'm missing ? > That's what I want to know too. I'm afraid that you can't understand the meaning of "this won't work". -- Taketoshi Sano: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
