On Fri 09 Oct 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > Debmake was never 100% policy conforming. Due to this lack Joey wrote
> > the debhelper that reflects our policy 1:1. Thus debhelper is to be
> > preferred against the other tool. However I'm not sure how
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Shaleh wrote:
> debhelper is the one under active development.
Mmm, is TeX under "active" development? I heard that the latest version is
still 3.14159, is 4.0 being to be released soon? :-)
Maybe we should stop using it just because of that? ;-)
No, I don't want to open aga
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Debmake was never 100% policy conforming. Due to this lack Joey wrote
> the debhelper that reflects our policy 1:1. Thus debhelper is to be
> preferred against the other tool. However I'm not sure how much
> orphaned debmake is since I saw a recent up
Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
> I have been using debmake+devscripts to build my debian packages till
> now. How does this compare to debhelper? Also, I remember seeing some
> post in debian-devel which said that one of these (debmake or debhelper)
> is being orphaned or is no longer in active
debhelper is the one under active development. It makes the build process
rather nice. Hand rolling is not needed. No sense making it complicated.
I have been using debmake+devscripts to build my debian packages till
now. How does this compare to debhelper? Also, I remember seeing some
post in debian-devel which said that one of these (debmake or debhelper)
is being orphaned or is no longer in active development. Should I move
to debhelper
6 matches
Mail list logo
