Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16..2
Hello:
I noticed that some of the options I set in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS and
DEB_*_APPEND get overriden by DEB_*_MAINT_*.
Also I noticed http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=653846
seems to suggest to set
DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-Os
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
found 666987 1.16.2
Bug #666987 [dpkg-dev] dpkg-buildflags: DEB_*_MAINT_* overrides user options.
Marked as found in versions dpkg/1.16.2.
notfound 666987 1.16..2
Bug #666987 [dpkg-dev] dpkg-buildflags: DEB_*_MAINT_* overrides user options.
There
Hello,
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012, Miguel Colon wrote:
I would guess the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt problem should be reported
against the package that suffer from this case
Yes, definitely.
but should not the user options in DEB_flag_* (or
$XDG_CONFIG_HOME/dpkg/buildflags.conf) override the
I'm not sure what the proper approach would be. On the other hand, I'm not
entirely convinced that it's important to let the user have the last word
in cases where maintainers have opted for a specific optimization level:
- building with -Os is typically made for udeb and I don't see a
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16.2
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
The solution to Bug #642608 introduced another problem. The lock on the control
file always uses the file debian/control.
The correct behavior should be to use the file specifed with the option -c.
/Mats
-- System
The brief description (summary) should be dpkg-dev: dpkg-gencontrol does NOT
use the control file specified with optin -c for the lock-file. I missed the
not when reported the bug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012, Miguel Colon wrote:
Well any flag not only optimization levels are affected but -OX is
probably the most common case.
Any flag that allow overriding a previous value of the same flag
and that maintainers are likely to change... wich doesn't make many.
Also some packages
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 667008 dpkg-dev: dpkg-gencontrol does not use the control file
specified with option -c for the lock-file
Bug #667008 [dpkg-dev] dpkg-dev: dpkg-gencontrol does use the control file
specified with optin -c for the lock-file
Changed Bug
retitle 667008 dpkg-dev: dpkg-gencontrol does not use the control file
specified with option -c for the lock-file
thanks
Hi,
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012, Mats Danielsson wrote:
Dear Maintainer,
The solution to Bug #642608 introduced another problem. The lock on the
control
file always uses the
We use dpkg-gencontrol and supply a full path to debian/control with the -c
option. The full path to the control file is used, because dpkg-gencontrol is
not run from the directory where debian/control exists.
Do you have do run dpkg-gencontrol in the directory where debian/control
exists?
Well any flag not only optimization levels are affected but -OX is
probably the most common case.
Any flag that allow overriding a previous value of the same flag
and that maintainers are likely to change... wich doesn't make many.
True, I was also thinking about the silly case when someone
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.2
Severity: wishlist
Block: 667023
Dear dpkg maintainers and H.J. Lu,
H.J. Lu is pushing the x32 abi into tools. His work is already part of
binutils 2.22 and gcc-4.7 in Debian sid. The next step to support this
architecture is bootstrapping it as a Debian port for
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
block 667023 with 667037
Bug #667023 [src:eglibc] src:eglibc: please provide a binary package for the
x32 sub architecture on amd64
667023 was blocked by: 667005
667023 was blocking: 667005
Added blocking bug(s) of 667023: 667037
thanks
Stopping
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Helmut Grohne hel...@subdivi.de wrote:
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.2
Severity: wishlist
Block: 667023
Dear dpkg maintainers and H.J. Lu,
H.J. Lu is pushing the x32 abi into tools. His work is already part of
binutils 2.22 and gcc-4.7 in Debian sid. The next
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Kamble, Nitin A
nitin.a.kam...@intel.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.to...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:35 AM
To: Helmut Grohne; 667...@bugs.debian.org; Debian Bug Tracking System
Cc: Kamble, Nitin A
Subject: Re:
-Original Message-
From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.to...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:35 AM
To: Helmut Grohne; 667...@bugs.debian.org; Debian Bug Tracking System
Cc: Kamble, Nitin A
Subject: Re: Bug#667037: dpkg: please add x32 abi to triplettable
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at
-Original Message-
From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.to...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:11 AM
To: Kamble, Nitin A
Cc: Helmut Grohne; 667...@bugs.debian.org; Debian Bug Tracking System
Subject: Re: Bug#667037: dpkg: please add x32 abi to triplettable
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.2
Severity: wishlist
Many packages provide support for locally installed software in
/usr/local. For instance, man-db supports locally installed manpages,
scripting languages like Python support locally installed modules,
fontconfig supports locally installed fonts,
18 matches
Mail list logo
