On Tue, Dec 11, 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Nope, this is correct, "pyversions -vr debian/control" gives you "2.4
> > 2.5", not "python2.4 python2.5". (In practice, I don't think there are
>
> Yeah, but personally I wouldn't call Makefile targets as such, I would
> rather prefer to $(fo
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:04:30PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Sorry, missed your message in the thread:
No problem, thanks for replying.
> > > build-%:
> > > PYTHON=`which python$*` ./configure
> > I guess this should have been "`which $*` ./configure", right? If so,
> > read on.
>
> Nope,
Hi,
(dropping lists out of To: as discussion died there and doesn't need
project wide audience IMO)
Sorry, missed your message in the thread:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > PYVERS := $(shell pyversions -vr debian/control 2>/dev/null)
> >
> > build-%:
> > PYTHO
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 08:23:28AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> With constructs like:
>
> PYVERS := $(shell pyversions -vr debian/control 2>/dev/null)
>
> build-%:
> PYTHON=`which python$*` ./configure
I guess this should have been "`which $*` ./configure", right? If so,
re
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Then why in the world are you using "build-%" if you don't support
> build-arch? What other values of '%' are you using?
build-python2.4, build-python2.5...
With constructs like:
PYVERS := $(shell pyversions -vr debian/control 2>/d
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> I got the feeling it was flaky from the criticism I read on
> debian-policy@ and that it couldn't work for all Makefiles; for example
> someone proposed to "make -f debian/rules -pn | grep '^build-arch:'"
> but this obviously wont f
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> *Sigh*.
> __> make -pn build-arch | grep '^build-arch'
> build-arch:
> OK?
Dude, there's no need to sigh out loudly; "make -pn $target" doesn't
change anything, but you didn't even read the rest of my point: that
packages were *alr
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am convinced that this bug report is of dubious value, and if
> Russ agrees, I am going to just mark this report as closed, or as
> wontfix.
Yup, I tagged this one dubious myself a while back. I agree with closing
it. I know that not ev
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:54:29 +0100, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I got the feeling it was flaky from the criticism I read on
> debian-policy@ and that it couldn't work for all Makefiles; for example
> someone proposed to "make -f debian/rules -pn | grep '^build-arch:'"
> but this obvious
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> d) stands in the way of technical proposals like passing information
> >> to the build system on the command line
> >> e) prevents people from relying on make semantics for builds.
>
> > The two above points are the same argument. The only prop
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:23:16 +0100, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> a) Adds no practical value
> It's about rejecting a change to policy; I don't see why it should
> add practical value.
The change was made in 2001. That is nearl
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> a) Adds no practical value
It's about rejecting a change to policy; I don't see why it should add
practical value.
> b) does not represent current practice
> c) not implementing the proposal is not a technical hindrance to any
> package
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> b) does not represent current practice
>> c) not implementing the proposal is not a technical hindrance to any
>> package
> This is the same point. Just for the record, there's a small set of
>
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
usertag 432564 +dubious
thanks
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:15:08 + (UTC), Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava debian.org> writes:
>>
>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:11:53 +0100, Matthias Klose > cs.tu-berlin.de>
> said:
>>
>> > IIRC we cannot assume that d
14 matches
Mail list logo
