On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 09:51:05PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I'm not quite clear from the bug logs what the final agreed wording is
> > for this proposal. Please could you let me know?
>
> I don't know that we ever reached a consensus on this proposal. Or rather we
> almo
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I'm not quite clear from the bug logs what the final agreed wording is
> for this proposal. Please could you let me know?
I don't know that we ever reached a consensus on this proposal. Or rather we
almost did, and then it devolved into many little arguments.
--
see shy j
I'm not quite clear from the bug logs what the final agreed wording is
for this proposal. Please could you let me know?
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian
> > It worries me that we're going to become *very* dependent on a
> > specific version of make all of a sudden.
>
> Why? Where? The only thing that's GNU make specific is the variable
> defintion as a dependency, i.e. the suggested implementation of the
> build-debug target. But that's only a rec
> It worries me that we're going to become *very* dependent on a
> specific version of make all of a sudden.
Why? Where? The only thing that's GNU make specific is the variable
defintion as a dependency, i.e. the suggested implementation of the
build-debug target. But that's only a recommendation
> This is the final form (or, at least, I am done with this). I am
> forwarding this to bugs.debian.org
My ok again for the second variant.
Roman
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 04:47:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > A simpler (though less comprehensive) solution would be to allow some
> > way to pass the -g flag explicitly, through standardized variables.
> > Something like:
> >
> > CC_DEBUG=-g dpkg-
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 04:47:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wondered if anyone else has an opionion on which of these to choose.
> > Either one works for me, but I think the first one is probably needed
> > since some builds just can't be changed
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wondered if anyone else has an opionion on which of these to choose.
> Either one works for me, but I think the first one is probably needed
> since some builds just can't be changed sensibly.
It worries me that we're going to become *very* dependent on
Ok, reformated Manoj's great work. Only change being DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
instead of just BUILD_OPTIONS.
I wondered if anyone else has an opionion on which of these to choose.
Either one works for me, but I think the first one is probably needed
since some builds just can't be changed sensibly.
Ben
Hi,
This is the final form (or, at least, I am done with this). I
am forwarding this to bugs.debian.org
manoj
The minimal change:
==
CC = gcc
CFLAGS = -O2 -g -Wall # sane warning opti
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 43787 debian-policy
Bug#43787: [PROPOSAL] changing policy on compiling with -g .. a better way
Bug reassigned from package `policy' to `debian-policy'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistan
12 matches
Mail list logo
