Thorsten Glaser writes:
> Neil Williams dixit:
>
>>Just what is wrong with old-style debhelper like:
>
> And in fact, it has limitations (such as not being able
> to rename in dh_install) and other requirements which,
> for mksh, throw a stone in my way more often than help.
FWIW, you do not nee
Neil Williams dixit:
>Just what is wrong with old-style debhelper like:
And in fact, it has limitations (such as not being able
to rename in dh_install) and other requirements which,
for mksh, throw a stone in my way more often than help.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@li
Neil Williams dixit:
>m68k is not a Debian architecture
It used to be one.
>it's requirements don't matter to the rest of Debian.
So speed doesn’t matter? I’m sure the maintainers of slower
architectures that *are* still in Debian would like to disagree.
Or do you want to throw them out while h
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:24:32 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >Just what is wrong with old-style debhelper like:
>
> Not much, other than the time a cowbuilder actually spends building
> the code, versus the time spent installing the B-D and doing several
> debhelper operations which – on m6
Neil Williams dixit:
>How is it helpful if you *and only you* know what is going on?
It’s better when the responsible person and noone else knows
what’s going on than when the responsible person doesn’t know
what’s going on.
>> bug in fakeroot precisely *because* the pax just built is used
>> to
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:21:05 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Neil Williams dixit:
>
> >work on except you. You are replaceable and pax is not *your personal
> >package* - it is in Debian, everyone with upload rights needs to be
> >able to at least work out if the package is sane.
>
> Somew
Neil Williams dixit:
>work on except you. You are replaceable and pax is not *your personal
>package* - it is in Debian, everyone with upload rights needs to be
>able to at least work out if the package is sane.
Somewhat, yes. But I am still the maintainer, and doing things.
>It adds to the mess
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:38:04 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >0: mangling to suit your own tools:
> >dpkg-gencontrol -ppax -Pdebian/pax -isp
> >mv debian/pax/DEBIAN/control debian/B/c/
> >rm -rf debian/pax/DEBIAN
> ># goodbye dh_md5sums
> >(cd debian/p
Dixi quod…
>I will change this if the current thing is proven to be unfit, or if
>a better alternative exists. But not now.
For what it’s worth, I asked because someone said possible behaviour
bugs. I don’t see a single hint of that in your list. Maybe the one
with chown 0:0 may be perceived as o
retitle 690381 mksh, pax: please use a more common packaging style
thanks
Neil Williams dixit:
>OK, I'm now even more miffed by pax because I've had to go through the
>source code AGAIN and it makes less sense now than it did during the
>BSP. Thanks for wasting yet more of my time.
Uhm, you coul
>Steve McIntyre dixit:
>>we think we may have found behaviour bugs too,
>>but we can't be sure without spending even more effort.
>
>OK, just give me what you have, and I'll look at it, but I'm
>pretty sure I checked them.
OK, I'm now even more miffed by pax because I've had to go through the
sou
11 matches
Mail list logo
