On 04/27/02 01:18:06 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Hi,
I am going to modify one of my packages so that two versions of the
software get built. Then I have to run the ./configure, make and make
install cycle twice.
However, the debian/rules file usually makes a difference between the
configure,
gpgp is removed by mistake --- the previous maintainer filed a "remove
gpgp" bug and orphaned it, I adopted it but didn't close the "remove gpgp"
bug. The crypt-in-main issue made the problem more complex:
* The latest version in the Debian archive was 0.4-6 (in contrib).
* I uploaded 0.4-7 to no
Hi,
I am going to modify one of my packages so that two versions of the
software get built. Then I have to run the ./configure, make and make
install cycle twice.
However, the debian/rules file usually makes a difference between the
configure, build and install phases. What is the best way to deal
On 04/27/02 01:18:06 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am going to modify one of my packages so that two versions of the
> software get built. Then I have to run the ./configure, make and make
> install cycle twice.
> However, the debian/rules file usually makes a difference between the
>
gpgp is removed by mistake --- the previous maintainer filed a "remove
gpgp" bug and orphaned it, I adopted it but didn't close the "remove gpgp"
bug. The crypt-in-main issue made the problem more complex:
* The latest version in the Debian archive was 0.4-6 (in contrib).
* I uploaded 0.4-7 to n
Hi,
I am going to modify one of my packages so that two versions of the
software get built. Then I have to run the ./configure, make and make
install cycle twice.
However, the debian/rules file usually makes a difference between the
configure, build and install phases. What is the best way to dea
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 10:47:20AM -0500, Shawn P. Garbett wrote:
> Here's another question. The package uses a version naming scheme such that
> the current version is 'h13u'. Creating a Debian package, do I need to have a
> straight forward naming scheme like '1.01' or should I just keep the ve
Here's another question. The package uses a version naming scheme such that
the current version is 'h13u'. Creating a Debian package, do I need to have a
straight forward naming scheme like '1.01' or should I just keep the version
as 'h13u'?
Shawn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 08:33:47AM -0500, Shawn P. Garbett wrote:
> Of course I was only fooling myself. The `` only works in shell scripts
> (which there are some as part of the build process). The following is what
> works in the Makefile.
>
> # Library directory for ghc
> GHCVERSION := $(shel
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 10:47:20AM -0500, Shawn P. Garbett wrote:
> Here's another question. The package uses a version naming scheme such that
> the current version is 'h13u'. Creating a Debian package, do I need to have a
> straight forward naming scheme like '1.01' or should I just keep the v
Here's another question. The package uses a version naming scheme such that
the current version is 'h13u'. Creating a Debian package, do I need to have a
straight forward naming scheme like '1.01' or should I just keep the version
as 'h13u'?
Shawn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
Of course I was only fooling myself. The `` only works in shell scripts
(which there are some as part of the build process). The following is what
works in the Makefile.
# Library directory for ghc
GHCVERSION := $(shell ghc --version | tr -d "a-zA-Z ,")
GHCDSTLIB = debian/tmp/lib/ghc-${GHCVERSIO
I've forwarded this message of mine to this group and will be looking forward
to any help I can get.
I put the following line in for where to install the library routines in the
makefile:
GHCDSTLIB = debian/tmp/lib/`ghc --version | tr -d "a-zA-Z ,"`/Fudgets
It seems to work.
Shawn Garbett
--
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 08:33:47AM -0500, Shawn P. Garbett wrote:
> Of course I was only fooling myself. The `` only works in shell scripts
> (which there are some as part of the build process). The following is what
> works in the Makefile.
>
> # Library directory for ghc
> GHCVERSION := $(she
Phil Brooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I could either (a) ask for the dependencies to be installed
You need to do this, regardless.
You can and should use dchroot where it's available, but chances are
you still need to ask to have dependencies installed.
> Ideally, I'd like to do what buildd
Luigi Gangitano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frederic also offered to sponsor me. I'd like to thank all of you for
> your kindness. :-) Don't know how it works, can I have more than one
> sponsor? :-)
You can have as many sponsors as you want. But you should stay with one
package at one sponsor.
How should I use dchroot on a developer machine?
I'm thinking of the specific problem where I wish to build a package (to
check I've cleared out a bug properly). The package has dependencies that
are not installed on the machine concerned.
I could either (a) ask for the dependencies to be instal
Il ven, 2002-04-26 alle 13:20, Joerg Jaspert ha scritto:
> Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Check what #128283 says:
> > | If someone is interested in re-introducing this package into Debian
> > | again, they can fetch the removed sources from
> > | /org/ftp.debian.org/morgue/rho
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Check what #128283 says:
> | If someone is interested in re-introducing this package into Debian
> | again, they can fetch the removed sources from
> | /org/ftp.debian.org/morgue/rhona/ on auric.debian.org.
> You can ask your sponsor to get them for y
Of course I was only fooling myself. The `` only works in shell scripts
(which there are some as part of the build process). The following is what
works in the Makefile.
# Library directory for ghc
GHCVERSION := $(shell ghc --version | tr -d "a-zA-Z ,")
GHCDSTLIB = debian/tmp/lib/ghc-${GHCVERSI
* Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20020426 12:33]:
> > Since it is not in the archive anymore I don't know where to get source
> > and rules for it... I'd like to reuse what as been done till now.
Check what #128283 says:
| If someone is interested in re-introduc
I've forwarded this message of mine to this group and will be looking forward
to any help I can get.
I put the following line in for where to install the library routines in the
makefile:
GHCDSTLIB = debian/tmp/lib/`ghc --version | tr -d "a-zA-Z ,"`/Fudgets
It seems to work.
Shawn Garbett
-
Luigi Gangitano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Build a package for it (use the existing one, update it).
> Do you know where I can find info on a packaged that has been
> oprhaned?
bugs.d.o/wnpp
packages.d.o/packagename
> Since it is not in the archive anymore I don't know where to get source
>
Luigi Gangitano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Build a package for it (use the existing one, update it).
> Do you know where I can find info on a packaged that has been
> oprhaned?
bugs.d.o/wnpp
packages.d.o/packagename
> Since it is not in the archive anymore I don't know where to get source
>
Phil Brooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I could either (a) ask for the dependencies to be installed
You need to do this, regardless.
You can and should use dchroot where it's available, but chances are
you still need to ask to have dependencies installed.
> Ideally, I'd like to do what build
Luigi Gangitano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frederic also offered to sponsor me. I'd like to thank all of you for
> your kindness. :-) Don't know how it works, can I have more than one
> sponsor? :-)
You can have as many sponsors as you want. But you should stay with one
package at one sponsor
How should I use dchroot on a developer machine?
I'm thinking of the specific problem where I wish to build a package (to
check I've cleared out a bug properly). The package has dependencies that
are not installed on the machine concerned.
I could either (a) ask for the dependencies to be insta
Il ven, 2002-04-26 alle 13:20, Joerg Jaspert ha scritto:
> Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Check what #128283 says:
> > | If someone is interested in re-introducing this package into Debian
> > | again, they can fetch the removed sources from
> > | /org/ftp.debian.org/morgue/rh
Am Freitag, 26. April 2002 10:55 schrieb Craig Small:
> Hello Cajus :),
> rpath, libtool? Ah yes there is a very long and sad story about this.
> Apparently the latest libtool, or ones from a certain version, fix
> this problem. Alternatively there is an evil patch somewhere that will
> also fix
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Check what #128283 says:
> | If someone is interested in re-introducing this package into Debian
> | again, they can fetch the removed sources from
> | /org/ftp.debian.org/morgue/rhona/ on auric.debian.org.
> You can ask your sponsor to get them for
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 02:33:53PM +0200, Cajus Pollmeier wrote:
> 2) As said, the make completes the second time, and everything
> seems to be fine. When "make install" is on the way, it removes
> the shared libraries (built by make) and tries to relink them. Due
> to an incorrect rpat
* Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20020426 12:33]:
> > Since it is not in the archive anymore I don't know where to get source
> > and rules for it... I'd like to reuse what as been done till now.
Check what #128283 says:
| If someone is interested in re-introduc
Luigi Gangitano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Build a package for it (use the existing one, update it).
> Do you know where I can find info on a packaged that has been
> oprhaned?
bugs.d.o/wnpp
packages.d.o/packagename
> Since it is not in the archive anymore I don't know where to get source
>
Luigi Gangitano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Build a package for it (use the existing one, update it).
> Do you know where I can find info on a packaged that has been
> oprhaned?
bugs.d.o/wnpp
packages.d.o/packagename
> Since it is not in the archive anymore I don't know where to get source
>
Am Freitag, 26. April 2002 10:55 schrieb Craig Small:
> Hello Cajus :),
> rpath, libtool? Ah yes there is a very long and sad story about this.
> Apparently the latest libtool, or ones from a certain version, fix
> this problem. Alternatively there is an evil patch somewhere that will
> also fi
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 02:33:53PM +0200, Cajus Pollmeier wrote:
> 2) As said, the make completes the second time, and everything
> seems to be fine. When "make install" is on the way, it removes
> the shared libraries (built by make) and tries to relink them. Due
> to an incorrect rpa
36 matches
Mail list logo
