On Monday 30 November 2015 21:06:17 Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> I know of licensecheck,
> but this area really cries for more automation and checking.
I'm working on it. You can try 'cme update dpkg-copyright' or 'scan-
copyrights' provided by libconfig-model-dpkg-perl.
Hopefully these commands will
Vincent Bernat writes:
> ❦ 30 novembre 2015 10:41 +0100, Ferenc Wagner :
>
>> Makefile.in files distributed in an upstream tarball often have several
>> copyright notices: the FSF copyleft at the top added by Automake and
>> later those carried over from other macr
Alex Vong writes:
> I am not a mentor, the following is just my opinions:
I'm afraid that if you answer a question on debian-mentors, you're a
mentor by definition. :)
> I don't know how Makefile.in is being handled in particular, but I
> think in general, if on
❦ 30 novembre 2015 10:41 +0100, Ferenc Wagner :
> Makefile.in files distributed in an upstream tarball often have several
> copyright notices: the FSF copyleft at the top added by Automake and
> later those carried over from other macro packages included into
> Makefile.am (for exam
Hi,
I am not a mentor, the following is just my opinions:
I think if possible, Makefile.in should not be included in tarball,
since dh_autoreconf will re-generate it at build-time anyway. But I
think it is fine to keep it if the upstream tarball provides it since
it does not worth repacking the
Dear mentors,
Makefile.in files distributed in an upstream tarball often have several
copyright notices: the FSF copyleft at the top added by Automake and
later those carried over from other macro packages included into
Makefile.am (for example: include doxygen.am). The result is like this
e-read the packaging manual. The New Maintainer's
> > Guide http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ is quite good.
>
> But the maint-guide tells me to modify the Makefile.in file, in order
> to build the package with "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot" later.
>
> I'd
e-read the packaging manual. The New Maintainer's
> > Guide http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ is quite good.
>
> But the maint-guide tells me to modify the Makefile.in file, in order
> to build the package with "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot" later.
>
> I'd
d.
But the maint-guide tells me to modify the Makefile.in file, in order to
build the package with "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot" later.
I'd like to create a source package so i can compile it later for specific
archs, does this procedure create a source package too?
thank you,
--
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 08:57:38PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:51:31 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
> >
> > Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
> > 'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
> >
> On Sun
t; the INSTALL file!
i'm sorry, i forgot to say i don't want to install it but to make a package :)
will changing the "prefix = @prefix@" line to "prefix = /usr" do?
--Makefile.in
SHELL = @SHELL@
srcdir = @srcdir@
top_srcdir = @top_src
d.
But the maint-guide tells me to modify the Makefile.in file, in order to
build the package with "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot" later.
I'd like to create a source package so i can compile it later for specific
archs, does this procedure create a source package too?
thank you,
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 12:51:31PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
>
> Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
> 'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
Also, set --mandir=/usr/share/man and --infodir=/usr/share/info, if
applicabl
Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:39:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm modifiing a Makefile.in to got rid o
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 08:57:38PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:51:31 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
> >
> > Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
> > 'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
> >
> On Su
Hello,
I'm modifiing a Makefile.in to got rid of the "/usr/local" but i have some
doubts.
----Makefile.in
SHELL = @SHELL@
srcdir = @srcdir@
top_srcdir = @top_srcdir@
VPATH = @srcdir@
prefix = @prefix@
exec_prefix = @exec_prefix@
bindir = @bindir@
sbindir = @sbin
> the INSTALL file!
i'm sorry, i forgot to say i don't want to install it but to make a package :)
will changing the "prefix = @prefix@" line to "prefix = /usr" do?
--Makefile.in
SHELL = @SHELL@
srcdir = @srcdir@
top_srcdir = @top_src
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 12:51:31PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
>
> Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
> 'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
Also, set --mandir=/usr/share/man and --infodir=/usr/share/info, if
applicab
Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:39:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm modifiing a Makefile.in to got
Hello,
I'm modifiing a Makefile.in to got rid of the "/usr/local" but i have some doubts.
----Makefile.in
SHELL = @SHELL@
srcdir = @srcdir@
top_srcdir = @top_srcdir@
VPATH = @srcdir@
prefix = @prefix@
exec_prefix = @exec_prefix@
bindir = @bindir@
sbindir = @sbin
> > 2. The source archive does not come with a Makefile, only a
> > Makefile.in; autoconf must be run before make.
>
> Unless you mean configure and configure.in, this is a non-issue.
Yikes! Yes, of course I meant configure and configure.in, and
"autoconf must
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 09:53:11PM -0500, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> 2. The source archive does not come with a Makefile, only a
> Makefile.in; autoconf must be run before make.
Unless you mean configure and configure.in, this is a non-issue. You only have
to run configure to genera
come with a Makefile, only a
> Makefile.in; autoconf must be run before make.
>
> Is autoconf assumed present for building?
No, unless you declare a build-time dependency.
> Is there some policy about this?
No. Do whatever you feel is right.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho %
I've come across two source archives that I'd like to package, that
have these characteristics:
1. The source archive contains CVS subdirectories.
Should I remove these before building? Does it matter?
2. The source archive does not come with a Makefile, only a
Makefile.in;
24 matches
Mail list logo
