On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Then why in the world are you using "build-%" if you don't support
> build-arch? What other values of '%' are you using?
build-python2.4, build-python2.5...
With constructs like:
PYVERS := $(shell pyversions -vr debian/control 2>/d
Your message dated Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:17:37 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line This is not suitable for a policy action at this time
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:09:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0800, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > I use "time" in benchmarking scripts.
>> I do not find the built in time to be a substitute for th
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:28:55 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:09:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0800, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>> > I use "time" in benchmarking scripts.
>> I do not find the built in tim
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:09:36PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0800, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I use "time" in benchmarking scripts.
> I do not find the built in time to be a substitute for the good
> old fashioned time command. Observe:
Debian Bug Tracking System writes ("Bug#432564 closed by Manoj Srivastava
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Re: Proposalto introduce compiler options passed from
dpkg-buildpackage)"):
> At this point, I would like to also add:
> [reasons]
Well, thanks for your attention in any case.
I still disa
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0800, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> I use "time" in benchmarking scripts.
>
> I do not find the built in time to be a substitute for the good
> old fashioned time command. [...]
Which is one reason
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:46:53 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> the new Python policy is in use since several months now and should be
> integrated.
Are these the policies that are currently in use?
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython/NewPolicy
This seems more l
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> I got the feeling it was flaky from the criticism I read on
> debian-policy@ and that it couldn't work for all Makefiles; for example
> someone proposed to "make -f debian/rules -pn | grep '^build-arch:'"
> but this obviously wont f
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:05:46PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 06:31:50PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > So arguing that you can pretend that your rules are a makefile while
> > they are actually not is completely destroying the only benefit of the
> > requirement...
>
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0800, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I use "time" in benchmarking scripts.
I do not find the built in time to be a substitute for the good
old fashioned time command. Observe:
__> time sleep 20
Real: 20.03s User: 0.00s System: 0.00s Percent: 0% Cmd
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:02:07 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I don't have a problem with requiring that debian/rules be a makefile;
> what I'm concerned about are any assumptions about what debian/rules
> actually contains besides it being a valid makefile.
Would you car
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:05:46 +0100, Bill Allombert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 2) Nothing (including the Debian policy itself) should assumes it is
> a Makefile or has any property expected of a Makefile.
I am afraid I fail to see the rationale for this. We have a
policy that ./debian/
Your message dated Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:03:46 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Proposalto introduce compiler options passed from
dpkg-buildpackage
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If t
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 06:31:50PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> So arguing that you can pretend that your rules are a makefile while
> they are actually not is completely destroying the only benefit of the
> requirement...
Personnaly I would not mind if Debian policy mandated that
1) debian/rule
Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Having a /bin/csh falls into "present on all Unix systems and likely to
>> provoke WTF reactions if not there." Also, I'm pretty sure that tcsh
>> is very comfortably the second-most-used interactive shell, way ahead
>> of zsh, on Linux systems.
> Alt
> Having a /bin/csh falls into "present on all Unix systems and likely to
> provoke WTF reactions if not there." Also, I'm pretty sure that tcsh is
> very comfortably the second-most-used interactive shell, way ahead of
> zsh, on Linux systems.
Although csh is the standard on a lot of systems, i
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
>I think we need a clear consensus to change
> it, and I haven't gotten the impression that such a consensus exists.
(Fair enough.)
--
Loïc Minier
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Except it completely breaks any hope to benefit of this new Policy
> > requirement:
> Uh, this isn't a new policy requirement. It's been a MUST in policy for
> years before you even applied to be a DD, eg.
Right; please strike "new" in my sentence;
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> *Sigh*.
> __> make -pn build-arch | grep '^build-arch'
> build-arch:
> OK?
Dude, there's no need to sigh out loudly; "make -pn $target" doesn't
change anything, but you didn't even read the rest of my point: that
packages were *alr
"brian m. carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 04:51:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:42:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> > time (???)
>>> Likewise. time is a standard Unix program.
>>
>>And
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 04:51:29AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:42:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>time (???)
Likewise. time is a standard Unix program.
And which is a built-in on bash, tcsh and zsh, so doesn't seem terr
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am convinced that this bug report is of dubious value, and if
> Russ agrees, I am going to just mark this report as closed, or as
> wontfix.
Yup, I tagged this one dubious myself a while back. I agree with closing
it. I know that not ev
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:54:29 +0100, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I got the feeling it was flaky from the criticism I read on
> debian-policy@ and that it couldn't work for all Makefiles; for example
> someone proposed to "make -f debian/rules -pn | grep '^build-arch:'"
> but this obvious
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> d) stands in the way of technical proposals like passing information
> >> to the build system on the command line
> >> e) prevents people from relying on make semantics for builds.
>
> > The two above points are the same argument. The only prop
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:42:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> tcsh (people who remember what it is know how to install it)
>> Having a /bin/csh falls into "present on all Unix systems and likely to
>> provoke WTF reactions if not there."
> Wh
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 06:31:50PM +0100, Lo?c Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Regardless, even requiring debian/rules to be a makefile doesn't
> > > actually do much, because someone could do something like:
> > > .DEFAULT:
> > > debian/irule $@
> > > or what
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:26:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I'm not sure if there's any point to continuing to try to make sure
> > that nothing >= optional conflicts with anything else >= optional.
> Hmm. Can you elaborate on this, please? Is it because it is too
> hard to achi
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:42:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It also includes, but afaics, probably doesn't need to (anymore):
> > ispell, dictionaries-common, iamerican, ibritish, wamerican
> > m4, texinfo (???)
> texinfo possibly for info a
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 00:01:43 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Haven't we more or less already moved away from priorities as meaning
>> anything particularly important? We have:
>
>> optional -- all the good software in the world
>> extra -- obscure stu
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:23:16 +0100, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> a) Adds no practical value
> It's about rejecting a change to policy; I don't see why it should
> add practical value.
The change was made in 2001. That is nearl
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Regardless, even requiring debian/rules to be a makefile doesn't
> > actually do much, because someone could do something like:
> > .DEFAULT:
> > debian/irule $@
> > or whatever.
>
> > People should be using make, but if they have a valid reas
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> b) does not represent current practice
>> c) not implementing the proposal is not a technical hindrance to any
>> package
> This is the same point. Just for the record, there's a small set of
>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> a) Adds no practical value
It's about rejecting a change to policy; I don't see why it should add
practical value.
> b) does not represent current practice
> c) not implementing the proposal is not a technical hindrance to any
> package
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 00:01:43 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Haven't we more or less already moved away from priorities as meaning
> anything particularly important? We have:
> * required/essential -- stuff that can't be removed: libc, dpkg,etc
Packages which are require
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
usertag 432564 +dubious
thanks
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:15:08 + (UTC), Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava debian.org> writes:
>>
>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:11:53 +0100, Matthias Klose > cs.tu-berlin.de>
> said:
>>
>> > IIRC we cannot assume that d
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It also includes, but afaics, probably doesn't need to (anymore):
>
> ispell, dictionaries-common, iamerican, ibritish, wamerican
> m4, texinfo (???)
texinfo possibly for info and dating from the days of needing to have an
info reader to get
Kind of reviving an old thread, but anyway:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 07:12:35PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> I believe it to be one of the more important bits of a standard Unix
> *desktop* installation - but this just reminds me of the fact that I'm
> quite uncomfortable with keeping a s
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:42:03PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I also could have sworn that we recently tightened this requirement,
> > but I can find no mention of that in changelog with some quick
> > searches. Am I just imagining things?
> It was ti
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:30:00PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> debian/rules must be an executable script with an
> appropriate #! line (so, if it is a makefile it must
> start with the line #!/usr/bin/make -f) so that it can
> be invoked by saying its name. It should use a
> widely-used
40 matches
Mail list logo
