Niels Thykier niels at thykier.net writes:
No, not out of the box. I believe it is supported via dh-exec and
debhelper compat 9 (though only available in Wheezy, so if you are
regularly backporting to older versions of Debian )
But using dh-exec kinda defeats the entire purpose of
Russ Allbery rra at debian.org writes:
Lars Wirzenius liw at liw.fi writes:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:05:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
For the record, I completely disagree with this packaging advice. Why
carry an upstream patch when you can handle this easily during build
time?
Russ Allbery dixit:
That code adds the line .nr g 2 to the start of cpio.1 and adds it to
the package as paxcpio.1.gz.
Incidentally, there is a massive limitation of the debhelper tools:
THEY CANNOT RENAME FILES.
I’ve had to add code to debian/rules in *several* packages to copy
or rename files
Guillem Jover guillem at debian.org writes:
Thorsten, OTOH the deb format has supported GNU ar generated archives
for a very long time, it's documented in the man page. So while using
Right. I’ve been building for sarge and dapper occasionally, and
etch and hardy regularily, and supporting
On 2013-04-27 18:45, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Russ Allbery dixit:
That code adds the line .nr g 2 to the start of cpio.1 and adds it to
the package as paxcpio.1.gz.
Incidentally, there is a massive limitation of the debhelper tools:
THEY CANNOT RENAME FILES.
No, not out of the box. I
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:38:14AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the
package manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted
at by the British Cabal with threats of using superpowers to remove
such packages from Debian.
On 04/22/2013 06:09 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
#690381
Gosh, what a shocking thread...
I didn't read until end, but nearly at half of it, it felt bad already.
Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it
prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then all
good
* Timo Juhani Lindfors timo.lindf...@iki.fi, 2013-04-22, 13:22:
Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it
prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then all
good for you and for Debian.
Was there perhaps some emoticon missing?
Sorry, yes, this one:
:/
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:25:42PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Timo Juhani Lindfors timo.lindf...@iki.fi, 2013-04-22, 13:22:
Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it
prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then
all good for you and for Debian.
Was there
On 04/24/2013 10:39 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
I'm sorry, but can I just clarify: do you think that it's an advantage
that your custom debian/rules prevents others from understanding your
package?
Neil
I don't think anyone ever wrote that. Jakub was quite clear, IMO.
If you are scared by echo
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:19:48PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 04/24/2013 10:39 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
I'm sorry, but can I just clarify: do you think that it's an advantage
that your custom debian/rules prevents others from understanding your
package?
I don't think anyone ever
On 04/25/2013 12:10 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
If you're deliberately obfuscating debian/rules when there's no or very
little advantage, then you shouldn't be producing the package.
I'm not the one claiming that using echo and cat is obfuscation!
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:25:00AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 04/25/2013 12:10 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
If you're deliberately obfuscating debian/rules when there's no or very
little advantage, then you shouldn't be producing the package.
I'm not the one claiming that using echo and cat
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
Agreed. Especially when I see that this:
echo .nr g 2 | cat - cpio.1 | \
gzip -n9 debian/pax/usr/share/man/man1/paxcpio.1.gz
is called obfuscation, then doom it as unacceptable for the archive.
I'm generally in favor of using standardized
Hi!
On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 09:38:14 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Adam Borowski kilobyte at angband.pl writes:
It can be done
Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the
package manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted
at by the British Cabal with
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:19:48PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
If you are scared by echo x | cat - y, that it prevents you from
understanding the rules files, then you shouldn't touch the package
anyway.
If you're deliberately obfuscating debian/rules
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes:
Perhaps you should go read the bug report first. As you seem to be
unwilling to actually do research, I'll include the relevant section for
your benefit:
-
1: deliberate obfuscation for no benefit:
echo .nr g 2 | cat - cpio.1 | \
gzip
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:05:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
For the record, I completely disagree with this packaging advice. Why
carry an upstream patch when you can handle this easily during build time?
As much as I dislike quilt, at least it makes it easy to see what
change Debian is
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:05:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
For the record, I completely disagree with this packaging advice. Why
carry an upstream patch when you can handle this easily during build
time?
As much as I dislike quilt, at least it makes it
On 04/25/2013 01:52 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
Perhaps you should go read the bug report first. As you seem to be
unwilling to actually do research, I'll include the relevant section for
your benefit:
-
1: deliberate obfuscation for no benefit:
echo .nr g 2 | cat - cpio.1 | \
Le Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 01:52:36PM -0400, Neil McGovern a écrit :
1: deliberate obfuscation for no benefit:
Hi everybody,
Can everybody please avoid to guess or propagate guesses on other persons
motivations ?
I think that a discussion can not be constructive if it contains statements
that
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:23:51AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:28:18PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
% ls -lh debian/rules
lrwxrwxrwx 1 mrvn users 1 Apr 16 12:27 debian/rules - /usr/bin/dh
Adam Borowski kilobyte at angband.pl writes:
It can be done
Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the
package manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted
at by the British Cabal with threats of using superpowers to remove
such packages from Debian.
And I
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:38:14AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the
package manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted
at by the British Cabal with threats of using superpowers to remove
such packages from Debian.
* Andrey Rahmatullin w...@wrar.name, 2013-04-22, 15:45:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:38:14AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the package
manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted at by the
British Cabal with threats of
Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes:
Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it
prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then all
good for you and for Debian.
Was there perhaps some emoticon missing? Uncommon debian/rules setups
might be required in some
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:28:18PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
% ls -lh debian/rules
lrwxrwxrwx 1 mrvn users 1 Apr 16 12:27 debian/rules - /usr/bin/dh
I don't understand your point, other than to demonstrate that
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:38:14AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Well yes, but if you do even small things such as generate the
package manually instead of using debhelper, prepare to be shouted
at by the British Cabal with threats of using superpowers to remove
such packages from Debian.
Hi,
This one time, at band camp, Timo Juhani Lindfors said:
Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes:
Thorsten, you should have kept your custom debian/rules. If it
prevented incompetent developers from NMUing the package, then all
good for you and for Debian.
Was there perhaps some emoticon
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:47:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
?? ?? pashev.i...@gmail.com writes:
Indeed.
So, in any case one can use its own tool just like dh:
%:
debian/megatool $@
Yes, from a Policy perspective. Although please consider using dh and its
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:28:18PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:47:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
?? ?? pashev.i...@gmail.com writes:
Indeed.
So, in any case one can use its own tool just like dh:
%:
debian/megatool $@
Yes,
Hallo Игорь Пашев,
2013-04-05 um 13:32:24 schriebst Du:
I've just realized that debian/rules might not be a makefile, but can
be a script in any language.
Is there any package using debian/rules whihc is not a makefile?
Are there any packages that can get advantages by using debian/rules
On 05/04/13 12:32, Игорь Пашев wrote:
I've just realized that debian/rules might not be a makefile, but can
be a script in any language.
This is technically possible (dpkg allows it), but not acceptable for
Debian packages (Debian Policy requires that debian/rules is an
executable makefile).
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 03:32:24PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
I've just realized that debian/rules might not be a makefile, but can
be a script in any language.
The policy says:
# 4.9. Main building script: `debian/rules'
# -
#
# This file must be an
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 03:32:24PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
I've just realized that debian/rules might not be a makefile, but can
be a script in any language.
Not really.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules
This file must be an executable makefile, [...]
Le vendredi 5 avril 2013 13:41:50, Adam Borowski a écrit :
It can be done, here's an example how to use a JIT C compiler (tcc)
this way:
dget http://angband.pl/debian/pool/main/g/goodbye/goodbye_0.2-1.dsc
although you might have trouble smuggling this through the FTPmasters :p
On the
2013/4/5 Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl:
The policy says
Indeed.
So, in any case one can use its own tool just like dh:
%:
debian/megatool $@
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Игорь Пашев pashev.i...@gmail.com writes:
Indeed.
So, in any case one can use its own tool just like dh:
%:
debian/megatool $@
Yes, from a Policy perspective. Although please consider using dh and its
framework instead to make life easier for everyone else in the project who
may have
38 matches
Mail list logo
