Your message dated Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:46:50 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Closing out ancient, fixed bugs
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 case it is now your re
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 01:16:40AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 07:18:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
> > >
> > > or, more simply:
> > >
> > > build binary-arch binary-indep binary clea
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 07:18:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
> >
> > or, more simply:
> >
> > build binary-arch binary-indep binary clean:
> > debian/myrules $@
> >
> > Or, even simpler:
> >
> > %:
> > de
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 07:18:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> or, more simply:
>
> build binary-arch binary-indep binary clean:
> debian/myrules $@
>
> Or, even simpler:
>
> %:
> debian/myrules $@
The latter might be problematic, if we re
Previously Adam Heath wrote:
> Or, even simpler:
>
> %:
> debian/myrules $@
The unfortunate problem with this is that make has the nasty habit of
changing the exitcode. If myrules exits with a non-zero exitcode you
will see make exiting with a completely different (although still
non-zero)
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 07:18:45PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
>
> or, more simply:
>
> build binary-arch binary-indep binary clean:
> debian/myrules $@
>
> Or, even simpler:
>
> %:
> debian/myrules $@
To me, this demonstrate one of the proper
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
or, more simply:
build binary-arch binary-indep binary clean:
debian/myrules $@
Or, even simpler:
%:
debian/myrules $@
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without disagreeing with your proposal, I'd like to point out that
> there seems to be a fairly trivial workaround:
>
> #! /usr/bin/make -f
> build:
> debian/myrules build
> binary-arch:
> debian/myrules binary-arch
> binar
First of all, Wichert, you set "Mail-Followup-To" to
"debian-policy@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]". I don't
think that followups to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are appropriate. (I'm not even
sure that a CC to the policy list was necessary, since bugs against
policy seem to automatically go to the pol
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 148941 wishlist
Bug#148941: Objection to change made in debian policy
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> merge 88029 88111
Bug#88029: allow rules file to be non-makefile
Bug#88111: [PROPOSAL] Allow debian/rules to not be a makefile
M
severity 148941 wishlist
merge 88029 88111
merge 88029 148941
thanks
Hi,
Do you have anything new to add to the previous times this has
come up? Surely you know it is bad form to keep opening new bug
reports every time a notion strikes ones fancy? You lose all the
arguments already
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 08:48:41PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
>
> +
> + This file must be an executable makefile, and contains the
> + package-specific recipes for compiling the package and
> + building binary package(s) out of the sourc
Package: debian-policy
In version 1.23 of the policy.sgml file Manoj made a few changes
that were related to incorporating the packaging manual into
policy.
Since the packaging manual did not have policy status this should
not have changed anything in policy, certainly not without a clear
consens
13 matches
Mail list logo
