Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de writes:
Neil Williams dixit:
Just what is wrong with old-style debhelper like:
And in fact, it has limitations (such as not being able
to rename in dh_install) and other requirements which,
for mksh, throw a stone in my way more often than help.
FWIW, you do
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:38:04 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote:
0: mangling to suit your own tools:
dpkg-gencontrol -ppax -Pdebian/pax -isp
mv debian/pax/DEBIAN/control debian/B/c/
rm -rf debian/pax/DEBIAN
# goodbye dh_md5sums
(cd
Neil Williams dixit:
work on except you. You are replaceable and pax is not *your personal
package* - it is in Debian, everyone with upload rights needs to be
able to at least work out if the package is sane.
Somewhat, yes. But I am still the maintainer, and doing things.
It adds to the mess in
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:21:05 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote:
Neil Williams dixit:
work on except you. You are replaceable and pax is not *your personal
package* - it is in Debian, everyone with upload rights needs to be
able to at least work out if the package is sane.
Neil Williams dixit:
How is it helpful if you *and only you* know what is going on?
It’s better when the responsible person and noone else knows
what’s going on than when the responsible person doesn’t know
what’s going on.
bug in fakeroot precisely *because* the pax just built is used
to
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:24:32 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote:
Just what is wrong with old-style debhelper like:
Not much, other than the time a cowbuilder actually spends building
the code, versus the time spent installing the B-D and doing several
debhelper operations
Neil Williams dixit:
m68k is not a Debian architecture
It used to be one.
it's requirements don't matter to the rest of Debian.
So speed doesn’t matter? I’m sure the maintainers of slower
architectures that *are* still in Debian would like to disagree.
Or do you want to throw them out while
Neil Williams dixit:
Just what is wrong with old-style debhelper like:
And in fact, it has limitations (such as not being able
to rename in dh_install) and other requirements which,
for mksh, throw a stone in my way more often than help.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Steve McIntyre dixit:
we think we may have found behaviour bugs too,
but we can't be sure without spending even more effort.
OK, just give me what you have, and I'll look at it, but I'm
pretty sure I checked them.
OK, I'm now even more miffed by pax because I've had to go through the
source
retitle 690381 mksh, pax: please use a more common packaging style
thanks
Neil Williams dixit:
OK, I'm now even more miffed by pax because I've had to go through the
source code AGAIN and it makes less sense now than it did during the
BSP. Thanks for wasting yet more of my time.
Uhm, you could
Dixi quod…
I will change this if the current thing is proven to be unfit, or if
a better alternative exists. But not now.
For what it’s worth, I asked because someone said possible behaviour
bugs. I don’t see a single hint of that in your list. Maybe the one
with chown 0:0 may be perceived as
11 matches
Mail list logo
