Vincent Fourmond escreveu isso aí:
> On 11/05/11 18:46, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Vincent Fourmond escreveu isso aí:
> >> On 11/05/11 17:51, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> >>> As Lucas wrote, setup.rb seems to be really deprecated. But if Vincent
> >>> is willing to write the code, IMO go ahead and wr
On 11/05/11 18:46, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Vincent Fourmond escreveu isso aí:
>> On 11/05/11 17:51, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> As Lucas wrote, setup.rb seems to be really deprecated. But if Vincent
>>> is willing to write the code, IMO go ahead and write a proposal so we
>>> can discuss in more
On 11/05/11 18:46, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Vincent Fourmond escreveu isso aí:
>> On 11/05/11 17:51, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> As Lucas wrote, setup.rb seems to be really deprecated. But if Vincent
>>> is willing to write the code, IMO go ahead and write a proposal so we
>>> can discuss in more
Vincent Fourmond escreveu isso aí:
> On 11/05/11 17:51, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > As Lucas wrote, setup.rb seems to be really deprecated. But if Vincent
> > is willing to write the code, IMO go ahead and write a proposal so we
> > can discuss in more concrete terms.
>
> It's in principle ready
On 11/05/11 17:51, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> As Lucas wrote, setup.rb seems to be really deprecated. But if Vincent
> is willing to write the code, IMO go ahead and write a proposal so we
> can discuss in more concrete terms.
It's in principle ready...
> I have only one requirement: instead of
Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí:
> On 11/05/11 at 14:51 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> > On 11/05/11 14:39, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > On 11/05/11 at 11:51 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> > >> Does anyone object to integrate a support for setup.rb directly into
> > >> gem2deb (something simil
On 11/05/11 at 15:58 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> [putting back debian-ruby, I don't understand how it got lost]
>
> On 11/05/11 14:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 11/05/11 at 14:56 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> >> On 11/05/11 14:50, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >>> But for rmagick, it seems th
[putting back debian-ruby, I don't understand how it got lost]
On 11/05/11 14:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 11/05/11 at 14:56 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>> On 11/05/11 14:50, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> But for rmagick, it seems that the hooks only deal with documentation
>>> building. Wouldn't
On 11/05/11 at 14:51 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> On 11/05/11 14:39, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 11/05/11 at 11:51 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> >> Does anyone object to integrate a support for setup.rb directly into
> >> gem2deb (something similar to the old cdbs class) ? That would be a
On 11/05/11 14:39, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 11/05/11 at 11:51 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>> Does anyone object to integrate a support for setup.rb directly into
>> gem2deb (something similar to the old cdbs class) ? That would be a
>> second auto build system (say, ruby-setup.rb) that users
On 11/05/11 at 14:45 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> On 11/05/11 14:39, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 11/05/11 at 11:51 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> >> Does anyone object to integrate a support for setup.rb directly into
> >> gem2deb (something similar to the old cdbs class) ? That would be a
On 11/05/11 14:39, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 11/05/11 at 11:51 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>> Does anyone object to integrate a support for setup.rb directly into
>> gem2deb (something similar to the old cdbs class) ? That would be a
>> second auto build system (say, ruby-setup.rb) that users
On 11/05/11 at 11:51 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Now that I got myself a little more familiar with gem2deb, I found
> that there is one thing missing: the support for builds/installs using
> gem2deb. The problem is the following: while in many cases the ruby dh
> sequencer d
Hello,
Now that I got myself a little more familiar with gem2deb, I found
that there is one thing missing: the support for builds/installs using
gem2deb. The problem is the following: while in many cases the ruby dh
sequencer does the right thing, it does not when upstream build system
relies
14 matches
Mail list logo
