On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 12:32:44AM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> Actually Marcus's solution is far cleverer than mine. Of course, mine
> doesn't rely on the makefiles being VPATH happy (is that an issue?).
Not for us, because we use GNU make (and all other Unixes in the world
should at least provide
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> I'm trying to build a debian package; this is the first debian package I
> try to build, so I need some help.
> I'm reading "Debian packaging manual" and "Debian policy manual". That's
> enough, or there is a better tutorial? The packaging manual looks as a
> des
> I'm reading "Debian packaging manual" and "Debian policy manual". That's
> enough, or there is a better tutorial? The packaging manual looks as a
try
http://www.debian.org/~elphick/manuals.html/maint-guide/index.html
Will
--
I'm trying to build a debian package; this is the first debian package I
try to build, so I need some help.
I'm reading "Debian packaging manual" and "Debian policy manual". That's
enough, or there is a better tutorial? The packaging manual looks as a
description of all the parts of a debian packag
Well, I know we've beat this one to death, but I still have a problem.
I'd appreciate it if anyone can take the time to look at this.
Make segfaults while trying to install.
The rules file can be found here:
http://www.debian.org/~mblevin/frustration/rules.txt
And the rest of the package (*.orig.t
James Troup wrote:
> No, the build target should be present and should do something,
> i.e. build the package. Even if it only depends on the two other
> build targets, it should still build stuff.
I hate to contradict you, but either you or the packaging manual is wrong:
For some pack
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 06:22:39PM -0500, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> > >
> > > No, the build target should be present and should do something,
> > > i.e. build the package. Even if it only depends on the two other
> > > build targets, it should still bui
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 06:22:39PM -0500, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> > >
> > > No, the build target should be present and should do something,
> > > i.e. build the package. Even if it only depends on the two other
> > > build targets, it should still build stuff.
> >
> > It
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 06:22:39PM -0500, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> >
> > No, the build target should be present and should do something,
> > i.e. build the package. Even if it only depends on the two other
> > build targets, it should still build stuff.
>
> It doesn't make sense to have the build
9 matches
Mail list logo
