* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [130221 07:07]:
> Christoph Biedl writes:
>
> >> Adding a dependency on makedev will work, but since the makedev package
> >> is long orphaned and there's rarely any reason to have it installed any
> >> more, I personally wonder if it wouldn't be better to just add
Christoph Biedl writes:
>> Adding a dependency on makedev will work, but since the makedev package
>> is long orphaned and there's rarely any reason to have it installed any
>> more, I personally wonder if it wouldn't be better to just add
>> appropriate mknod calls directly?
>
> With all respect
Bdale Garbee wrote...
> Adding a dependency on makedev will work, but since the makedev package
> is long orphaned and there's rarely any reason to have it installed any
> more, I personally wonder if it wouldn't be better to just add
> appropriate mknod calls directly?
With all respect, I disagr
> "Guillem" == Guillem Jover writes:
Guillem> On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 20:30:48 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> with the current packaging tools, you tend to end up producing
>> the .shlibs files in order to manage cross-package dependencies
>> within a single source package. If it
4 matches
Mail list logo
