On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Bas van Gompel wrote:
> Op Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:52:31 -0400 (EDT) schreef Igor Pechtchanski
> :
Cute, very cute...
> : On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Max Bowsher wrote:
> [...]
> : > This makes me wonder if it might be sensible for all package maintainers
> : > to say a little about t
Bas,
Oh, and one more comment:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Bas van Gompel wrote:
> [snip]
> @@ -339,6 +344,7 @@ case $1 in
> strip && pkg && spkg && finish ; \
> STATUS=$? ;;
>*) echo "Error: bad arguments" ; exit 1 ;;
> -esac
> -exit ${STATUS}
> -
> + esac
> + ( e
Volker,
>> Gerrit P Haase writes:
> > Forget the patch with the static library. Though it works for
> > glib-genmarshal it will fail later with gobject-scan which is more
> > problematic. Unless someone figures out how to build gobject-scan
> > statically I need to find anot
Op Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:58:42 -0400 (EDT) schreef Igor Pechtchanski in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
: On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Bas van Gompel wrote:
:
: > Op Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:52:31 -0400 (EDT) schreef Igor Pechtchanski
: > :
:
: Cute, very cute...
Ehh... Thanks, I think.
[...package maintainers could tak
Op Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:04:42 -0400 (EDT) schreef Igor Pechtchanski
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
: > + ( exit ${STATUS} ) || exit ${STATUS}
: ^^
: > + shift
: > +done
:
: Do we really need a subshell here? Isn't an "if" test enough (and more
: efficient)?
Some thoughts.
Op Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:58:25 -0400 schreef Robb, Sam
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[Instructions for using the generic build script]
:Right now, it looks like it's something like:
:
:1) Get source tarball (ex, foo-0.1.tar.gz)
:2) Rename GBS as appropriate (ex, foo-0.1-1.sh)
: (hereaft
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Bas van Gompel wrote:
> Op Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:58:42 -0400 (EDT) schreef Igor Pechtchanski:
> : On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Bas van Gompel wrote:
> :
> : > Op Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:52:31 -0400 (EDT) schreef Igor Pechtchanski
> : > :
> : Cute, very cute...
> Ehh... Thanks, I think.
Ye
> > : I think we could use something like "make -n" and check the return code...
> > : But as I don't have the time to implement it properly now, I'll look at
> > : whatever methods people choose to provide in their patches.
> >
> > It was something using a ``make -f -'' IIRC... (l8r)
>
> Hmm,
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Bas van Gompel wrote:
> Op Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:04:42 -0400 (EDT) schreef Igor Pechtchanski:
> [...]
> : > + ( exit ${STATUS} ) || exit ${STATUS}
> : ^^
> : > + shift
> : > +done
> :
> : Do we really need a subshell here? Isn't an "if" test enough (and
Igor Pechtchanski schrieb:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Bas van Gompel wrote:
: > Each of them does:
: >
: > *) Allow more than one argument at a time (e.g. do
: > ``./boffo-1.0.36-1.sh prep conf build'').
: >
: > *) An ``ispatch'' command, copying a fresh patch, to make the porting
: > process easier. (Wh
Op Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:49:11 -0400 (EDT) schreef Igor Pechtchanski
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[ask for two separate patches?]
: I think I'd prefer the multiple parameters patch first, with its own
: ChangeLog. That part looks good enough to check in, actually.
Attached.
ChangeLog entry:
2004-0
11 matches
Mail list logo
