On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
> > If I am correct, this means that dpkg only needs to rebuild the database
> > from scratch if the sysadmin has edited one or more of the text files.
> > This could mean a much shorter startup time for dpkg.
>
> Doesn't apt already use a cache database? See
Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> That's why I and several other people have proposed a cache database. The
> text files will still be the authoritative source of information for dpkg.
> But after dpkg has read them and built its database in memory (as it does
> now), it can save this database to disk. The
On Sat, Jun 06, 1998 at 02:52:10PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
> I don't know if just a plain makefile like debian/rules is enough
> though. I think a more powerful approach is to use a configure-style
> script to generate the debian/rules file. I'm doing this with some of
> the Gnome packages.
If mi
Jim Pick wrote:
> Here's a middle ground solution:
>
>Have an optional "debconfigure" script that would be run before
>running dpkg-buildpackage. You would pass options to it, and it
>would generate the appropriate debian/rules file.
It seems more consistent with current practice to
Ian Jackson wrote:
> The way I see this working is that there is only one per-host local
> database, but you preload it with the information you want before you
> start the installation. That way databases from other hosts and
> things like that are just special kinds of preloading.
Yes, that's t
Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As the other half of the imlib question, let me put in my two cents. As
> a developer and a free software lover I would hate to see this type of
> thing. I see a fix, but am not sure if it is possible. I use
> dpkg-buildpackage. Is there some way analagous
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Of course, in reality, none of the ports is building only the "main"
> > part of the Debian - they are also building the "contrib" and
> > "non-free" parts..
>
> What reality are *you* living in? Not one I rec
As the other half of the imlib question, let me put in my two cents. As
a developer and a free software lover I would hate to see this type of
thing. I see a fix, but am not sure if it is possible. I use
dpkg-buildpackage. Is there some way analagous to "make foo" for this.
We could then do "b
Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, in reality, none of the ports is building only the "main"
> part of the Debian - they are also building the "contrib" and
> "non-free" parts..
What reality are *you* living in? Not one I recognize. I know that
several (of the tiny numbers of the
> * must be manually compilable using only packages from within
>"main". It is permissible to have source packages which are
>also configured to produce binary packages that are not to
>be installed in "main", and which require tools from outside
>of "main" to
Hello,
I was going to over gdk-imlib from Shaleh so I can release Gnome 0.20,
and I encountered this policy issue. (Shaleh may be keeping gdk-imlib
now)
One of the outstanding bugs is #22096, where James Troup complains
that gdk-imlib depends on a non-free library to build (giflib, for the
non-
11 matches
Mail list logo
