On 18 Sep 1999, James LewisMoss wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:13:49 +0200 (CET), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Santiago> David Welton wrote:
> >> Xemacs21 - runs *autoconf* to generate other makefiles, which are
> >> then run. [...]
>
> autoconf doesn't generat
> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:13:49 +0200 (CET), Santiago Vila <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
Santiago> David Welton wrote:
>> Xemacs21 - runs *autoconf* to generate other makefiles, which are
>> then run. [...]
autoconf doesn't generate makefiles. It generates a configure file.
>> Do you
David Welton wrote:
> Xemacs21 - runs *autoconf* to generate other makefiles, which are then
> run.
> [...]
>
> Do you seem what I mean? Each of these is doing something slightly
> different, and it is a bit frustrating not to see a bit more
> cohesiveness. Not that any of these things are *bad*
Michael Alan Dorman writes:
> "David N. Welton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hi, while working on the ARM port, I've begun to become frustrated
> > with the IMO, not entirely necessary diversity in our "rules" files.
>
> I agree with this. And I think debhelper is of enourmous value. I
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 06:36:47PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Klee had an interesting idea on this, that makes more sense I think. If
> you look at all the different kinds of programs that are being packages
> you notice that a lot of them fall into quite well-defined categories
>
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 10:30:18PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 01:08:22PM -0500, David Welton wrote:
> > I think that as many packages as reasonably possible should
> > migrate towards them. They work pretty well, but I don't believe
> > in forcing them on peopl
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 01:08:22PM -0500, David Welton wrote:
> I think that as many packages as reasonably possible should migrate
> towards them. They work pretty well, but I don't believe in forcing
> them on people if they are really opposed.
So even if we did decide to do what you suggest, I
Klee had an interesting idea on this, that makes more sense I think. If
you look at all the different kinds of programs that are being packages
you notice that a lot of them fall into quite well-defined categories
such as Imake-based, automake-based, GNU-style, etc.
It would make sense to make a
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 01:30:20PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > > > Joey Hess' debhelper scripts are a good API, maybe it would be
> > > > good to standardize on them to some degree.
> > > No.
> >
> > I didn't say "make them THE standard"
> What did you mean then?
I think that as
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 09:41:11AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> The specific problem is that with multiple "optional" helper packages
> available, all are being used somewhere to build some package, so, if you
> want to build all packages in Debian, you _must_ first install _all_ of
> the helper pa
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 03:54:15PM -0500, Erick Kinnee wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:23:50PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > > No.
> >
> > Uhm, WTH is that about? No, what? No, they suck? No, don't standardize?
>
> No, don't s
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Paul Slootman wrote:
>
> If all I'm doing is trying fix something, usually just invoking 'make'
> will do it (or some subtle variation that a glance at the rules file
> will make clear). Once it builds, I do 'debian/rules clean' and then
> restart the package build, to ensure
On Sep 14, "David N. Welton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It would be nice if more packages built as if you were running a
>regular make, instead of restarting from the beginning (running
>./configure again), and in a more consistent manner.
I proposed many times dh_configure to debhelper maint
On Wed 15 Sep 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> PS: I would appreciate its use as well, it sucks that some pkg's are
> rebuilding everything if one only is working on a patch in to one
> file
If all I'm doing is trying fix something, usually just invoking 'make'
will do it (or some subtle variation
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 03:54:15PM -0500, Erick Kinnee wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:23:50PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > No.
>
> Uhm, WTH is that about? No, what? No, they suck? No, don't standardize?
No, don't standardize.
> How about a better idea maybe?
If there were some
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 02:31:30PM -0500, David Welton wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:23:50PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:39:05AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
>
> > > Joey Hess' debhelper scripts are a good API, maybe it would be
> > > good to standard
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 04:01:42PM -0500, David Welton wrote:
> to function in a more standard way, so that you pretty much knew what
> was going on, without having to figure out whatever wierd specific
> system a particular maintainer has used.
Can you give an example of a non-standard rules file
According to Ben Collins:
> > Or even simpler:
> >
> > test -f config.status || ./configure
>
> No, this case will cause the make to fail.
No it won't.
% false || true
% echo $?
0
Mike.
--
... somehow I have a feeling the hurting hasn't even begun yet
-- Bill, "The Terrible Thunde
18 matches
Mail list logo
