On 16 Apr 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Santiago> Currently, you force to have those tools installed to
> Santiago> everybody who wants to recompile the package.
>
> Why is it a problem to require that `autoconf' and `a
> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> Currently, you force to have those tools installed to
Santiago> everybody who wants to recompile the package.
Why is it a problem to require that `autoconf' and `automake' be
installed? Once you install the compiler
Hi,
>>"Bob" == Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob> I expect to make some minor modifications in the upstream
Bob> Makefile.in. Should these be mentioned in the copyright file or
Bob> the changelog?
Ummm, changelog, I think, unless it somehow modifies or is
relevant to the upst
Thanks for all the input. Manoj, I have been relying upon your
posted rules files from the start. Without them, I wouldn't have
gotten this far.
I have found my problem. I believed that changelog.Debian
applied to the binary package, rather than to the source package, and
had created
> "Scott" == Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> You actually only need to run it once. Once they've been
Scott> run once (probably right after porting your changes into a
Scott> new version), the updated files are left behind and will be
Scott> included in the diff
On 9 Apr 1998, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Santiago> I disagree here.
>
> Santiago> If you put this in a different debian/rules target
> Santiago> (called, for example, automake-refresh), then you and
> Santiago> only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 9 Apr 1998, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> For the GIMP packages, it is required; they ship with a libtool
> that is incompatible with Debian policy. I have to run
> automake/aclocal/autoconf every single time the package builds
> to remove all vestiges of the old l
> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> I disagree here.
Santiago> If you put this in a different debian/rules target
Santiago> (called, for example, automake-refresh), then you and
Santiago> only you would be forced to have automake and autoconf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 8 Apr 1998, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Here's the debian/rules from my GIMP packages. It should clear up
> your confusion. It uses debhelper judiciously; I'd recommend using
> debhelper to save your sanity. :)
>
> #!/usr/bin/make -f
>
> # First, we build the p
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have this in my directory on master (rules.tar.gz, I
> think). README follows (the tarball has HTML stuff in it too, meant
> to be dropped onto the develoers corner web page).
You should just put this up on the public HTML space on master..
Hi,
I have this in my directory on master (rules.tar.gz, I
think). README follows (the tarball has HTML stuff in it too, meant
to be dropped onto the develoers corner web page).
manoj
__
Here are a set
Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your debian/rules should build *both* packages.
>
> Here's the debian/rules from my GIMP packages. It should clear up
> your confusion. It uses debhelper judiciously; I'd recommend using
> debhelper to save your sanity. :)
Bob, don't fear the reaper.
Your debian/rules should build *both* packages.
Here's the debian/rules from my GIMP packages. It should clear up
your confusion. It uses debhelper judiciously; I'd recommend using
debhelper to save your sanity. :)
#!/usr/bin/make -f
# First, we build the package. The automake/aclocal/autoconf s
I am preparing my first package, and am building it by hand to
get a clearer understanding of the package building process. It will
have two binary packages, dictd and dict, both of which come from the
dictd source.
I have reached the point where the first, and larger, package
produces
14 matches
Mail list logo
