[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Outside the chroot, where you probably have auto* installed the
>> invocation suddenly works and you get a different generated file that
>> might or might not fail.
> They would immediately f
On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Outside the chroot, where you probably have auto* installed the
> invocation suddenly works and you get a different generated file that
> might or might not fail.
They would immediately fail anyway on the autobuilds.
--
ciao,
Marco
s
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 05:37:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.01.1221 +0100]:
>&
* martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060801 18:17]:
> also sprach Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.01.1701 +0100]:
> > Missing $(DESTDIR)s in Makefiles are an example. Especially when the
> > install part was DESTDIRified, but the test before if the file is
> > already there (as make
> "Martijn" == Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martijn> The only example I can think of is programs that use
Martijn> configure to include support for anything they can find
Martijn> installed. So you get different results depending on
Martijn> what's install
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 05:37:58PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.01.1221 +0100]:
> >> Building in chroots *hides* bugs.
> >
> > Uh
also sprach Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.01.1701 +0100]:
> Missing $(DESTDIR)s in Makefiles are an example. Especially when the
> install part was DESTDIRified, but the test before if the file is
> already there (as make install does not want to overwrite a config file)
> was forgo
* martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060801 15:29]:
> also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.01.1221 +0100]:
> > Building in chroots *hides* bugs.
>
> Uh, what? Please give an example.
Missing $(DESTDIR)s in Makefiles are an example. Espe
; Also, pbuilder and debootstrap are considered absolutely critical for
>> >> > > serious work.
>> >> > That's a bold statement.
>> >> Are you serious? (SCNR ;-)
>> > Yes. I do not use either and I think I have been doing serious Debian
>>
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.01.1221 +0100]:
>> Building in chroots *hides* bugs.
>
> Uh, what? Please give an example.
Missing Build-Conflicts aren't found.
Auto* scripts "fail&quo
On 8/1/06, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.01.1221 +0100]:
> Building in chroots *hides* bugs.
Uh, what? Please give an example.
The only example I can think of is programs that use configure to
include suppo
> > > serious work.
> >> > That's a bold statement.
> >> Are you serious? (SCNR ;-)
> > Yes. I do not use either and I think I have been doing serious Debian
> > work so far.
Argh, the smiley was there for a reason...
> > Building in chroots *h
also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.01.1221 +0100]:
> Building in chroots *hides* bugs.
Uh, what? Please give an example.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :
u serious? (SCNR ;-)
> Yes. I do not use either and I think I have been doing serious Debian
> work so far.
> Building in chroots *hides* bugs.
Of course. However, not building in chroots also hides bugs. Why do
you think it's better to build in a chroot?
I think a package should be
14 matches
Mail list logo
