On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:03:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
between packages that
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Plus a note in policy clarifying that debian/rules is only an
interface for dpkg-buildpackage but not users.
Right. If you want to make this a rule, then we should discuss it, reach
a consensus, document and publicize the change, and so forth.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I have to say i verry rarely do not use debuild. And 99% of the
exceptions are calling debian/rules clean.
Precisely, debuild does not use dpkg-buildpackage, but call
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 08:46 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
People have noticed that and already requested that we can call
arbitrary
targets of debian/rules with all the proper initialization done
precisely
for test purpose during
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
Such change would rather lead me to hardcode values of
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
Such change
6 matches
Mail list logo
