On Mon, 11 May 2009, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Well, debuild calls dpkg-buildpackage most of the time, unless you give a
> specific target (which would again possibly be of interest to those who are
> interested in calling debian/rules by hand for some reason). And that is also
> something newis
On Monday 11 May 2009 00:06:09 Steve Langasek wrote:
> Or maybe I've misunderstood, and there are
> Debian developers who are building official packages for *upload* by
> calling debian/rules by hand, and that's what people are concerned about
> preserving while still getting the benefits of these
On Sun, 10 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > If there's any intention at all that Policy eventually mandate use of
> > these Makefile includes, then at a minimum I think Policy needs to
> > *very* tightly constrain what dpkg is allowed to put in those files,
> > to avoid future incompatibilitie
On Sun, 10 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I would prefer Debian to remain a full fledged member of the free
> software community, and continue to not let build behaviour diverge
> whether or not dpkg-buildpackage was used -- which can be a substancial
> resource hog for multiple bin
On Sun, May 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
>> > config files using your interpreter's 'include' f
On Sun, May 10 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this
>> seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of
>> interfaces we've mandated in Policy in the past (i.e., envi
On Sun, May 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:35:18AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> * We can set the architecture and default flags (from policy) on the
>> makefile to be included, and packagers will be able to do the change
>> and fix any possible problems (progress
Bill Allombert writes:
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 09:54:11PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this
>> > seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of
>> > inter
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
>> > config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but t
On Sun, 2009-05-10 at 23:37 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
> > config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's
> > basically what we have here
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
> > config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's
> > basically what we ha
On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote:
> I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement
> config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's
> basically what we have here.
Guillem pointed out one problem: Either you do it via a make inc
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 09:54:11PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this
> > seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of
> > interfaces we've mandated in Policy
On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this
> seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of
> interfaces we've mandated in Policy in the past (i.e., environment
> variables, executables and command-line
On Sun, May 10, 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this
> seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of
> interfaces we've mandated in Policy in the past (i.e., environment
> variables, executables and command-line
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:35:18AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> * We can set the architecture and default flags (from policy) on the
> makefile to be included, and packagers will be able to do the change
> and fix any possible problems (progressive opt-in), but once it's
> included by all pa
16 matches
Mail list logo
