Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2829T092919+0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
Really? I doubt that the package build-essential (to name a
random example :-) needs the C compiler.
You misread me (or did I express my badly?). I mean that there exists
at least one program such
Previously Paul Slootman wrote:
It would be useful if dpkg-buildpackage checked it then.
It will check them in the future, maybe not by default though.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented
On Fri 01 Sep 2000, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
What about for users who want to rebuild the package for whatever
reasons? Many times you get half way through some huge package and it
craps out because you didn't have some esoteric header file or
library. Build-depends is invluable for avoiding
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think that since every package using a helper package seems
to need a versioned dependency
I don't see any reason why versioned build-dependancies on debhelper are
any more common that versioned build dependancies on say, the C
compiler. Not to mention the C++
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
dpkg-dev is an extremely stable interface, something you can not
say for debhelper.
Prove it. (See my earlier message about make.)
--
see shy jo, pissed off
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Steve Greenland wrote:
So I'm supposed to go back and figure out if my packages can be
successfully built with debhelper 2.0.58? If so, how can I -- is there
a complete archive of all released debhelpers somewhere?
Please read the bottom of http://cgi.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=51898
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 04:35:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 12:04:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 10:37:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Purists happen to be whoever disagrees with Hamish Moffat. Cf. his
By the way, please watch
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 01:55:09PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Those people would be equally well served by a note or check at the
beginning of the debian/rules file; we didn't need policy and a new
control file headers for that.
That sounds like an ideal addition to debhelper; wouldn't that
On 2901T104626-0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
find. The policy manual says look in build-essential. The control
file for Build-essential says look in policy manual
The policy manual says look for the *informational* list in
build-essential. build-essential says look for the *definition* in
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 12:04:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 10:37:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Purists happen to be whoever disagrees with Hamish Moffat. Cf. his
rhetoric here with his rhetoric in the great Social Contract amendment
flamewar.
Perhaps
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:10:27PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Richard Braakman wrote:
I don't know how the decision ended up being made, but the argument
I presented at the time is that a dependency on debhelper is far more
likely to be versioned than the others are. A
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 04:49:31PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think that since every package using a helper package seems
to need a versioned dependency, addign debhelper to build essential
shall not remove the burden from the packages. And
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 04:35:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 12:04:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 10:37:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Purists happen to be whoever disagrees with Hamish Moffat. Cf. his
rhetoric here with his
Previously Anand Kumria wrote:
So file a bug. They can do exactly the same thing with dpkg-dev.
dpkg-dev is an extremely stable interface, something you can not
say for debhelper.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Nothing is fool-proof to
On 31-Aug-00, 12:43 (CDT), Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:29:30PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
different references and finally install the build-depends package to
find
On 31-Aug-00, 16:52 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that you start with a particular version dependency, and then
only update the dependency if you use new features not present in
older helper packages.
This can be tricky, as it is easy to use a new feature without
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
[...]
I think I miswrote earlier: I wrote build-essentials when I should
have written Build-Depends. And I'd wager that the vast majority
of the Debian developers have no need at all for Build-Depends.
What about for users who want to rebuild the
On 01-Sep-00, 12:10 (CDT), Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
I think I miswrote earlier: I wrote build-essentials when I should
have written Build-Depends. And I'd wager that the vast majority
of the Debian developers have no need at all
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
Those people would be equally well served by a note or check at the
beginning of the debian/rules file; we didn't need policy and a new
control file headers for that.
Alright. What if apt-get source was enhanced so it would pull down any
packages
On 01-Sep-00, 15:04 (CDT), Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
Those people would be equally well served by a note or check at the
beginning of the debian/rules file; we didn't need policy and a new
control file headers for that.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:06:30PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
different references and finally install the build-depends package to
find out what I could leave out of by Build-Depends stanza. It would
*much* easier for
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:06:30PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
different references and finally install the build-depends package to
find out what I could leave out of by Build-Depends stanza. It would
*much* easier for
Steve == Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Are you saying that someone running a build daemon is not
Steve going to keep up-to-date on build-essential packages? Why not?
Steve And if not, why is my (the maintainer's) job to keep changing
Steve the version numbers in my control
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 10:37:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Purists happen to be whoever disagrees with Hamish Moffat. Cf. his
rhetoric here with his rhetoric in the great Social Contract amendment
flamewar.
Perhaps you should stick with your one liners, Branden. Your
three-liners
Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think that since every package using a helper package seems
to need a versioned dependency, addign debhelper to build essential
shall not remove the burden from the packages. And auto build daemons
can also augment the build environment beyond
On 31-Aug-00, 07:18 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Firstly, build essential package is ot merrely for
build daemaons.
No, but I think that's the primary reason for it's existence. If it
was mainly for humans, it would be sufficient to have checks in the in
On 2830T234249+0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 01:06:30PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
different references and finally install the build-depends package to
find out what I could leave out of by
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 08:29:30PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
different references and finally install the build-depends package to
find out what I could leave out of by Build-Depends stanza. It would
*much*
Steve == Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve On 31-Aug-00, 07:18 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Firstly, build essential package is ot merrely for
build daemaons.
Steve No, but I think that's the primary reason for it's
Steve existence. If it was mainly for
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 11:57:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hamish == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hamish The package could be redone not to use debhelper. At the same time,
Hamish the package could be rewritten not to use the C compiler.
Hamish Lazy programmers who
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 08:22:16AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:21:55PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
I doubt you know what the logic was.
No, I don't, because I can't see any logic in excluding debhelper.
I don't know how the decision ended up being made,
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:45:06PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
Not having the helper packages included in the autobuild system appears to
benefit, at most, around ~470 packages.
It is not a benefit; it is simply irrelevant to them.
Julian
--
On 29-Aug-00, 16:05 (CDT), Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it make sense to make policy something like All official Debian
auto-build machines will have installed this set of build packages: gcc,
..., and debhelper. Debian packages are not required to specify build
dependencies
On 30-Aug-00, 04:21 (CDT), Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know how the decision ended up being made, but the argument
I presented at the time is that a dependency on debhelper is far more
likely to be versioned than the others are. A package that makes use
of a new
On 2830T112651-0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 29-Aug-00, 16:05 (CDT), Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it make sense to make policy something like All official Debian
auto-build machines will have installed this set of build packages: gcc,
..., and debhelper. Debian
On 30-Aug-00, 12:51 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2830T112651-0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
That's pretty much the definition (or at least the *use*) of
Build-Essential: packages that may be assumed to be present, so that
they need not be listed in
Hello.
Anand Kumria schrieb:
Not having the helper packages included in the autobuild system appears to
benefit, at most, around ~470 packages.
May I ask how they benefit?
It's only a (little) burden on the packages that use debhelper,
but I can't see any benefits for packages not using it.
Previously Steve Greenland wrote:
It is not unreasonable to assume that the latest-and-greatest version of
all the build-essential packages will be installed.
I wonder what world you are living in. It is in reality a completely
unreasonable assumption.
Wichert.
--
Previously Richard Braakman wrote:
I don't know how the decision ended up being made, but the argument
I presented at the time is that a dependency on debhelper is far more
likely to be versioned than the others are. A package that makes use
of a new feature of debhelper is going to have to
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The definition is the following:
It is not be necessary to explicitly specify build-time relationships
on a minimal set of packages that are always needed to compile, link
and put in a Debian package a standard Hello World! program
On 30-Aug-00, 15:08 (CDT), Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Previously Steve Greenland wrote:
It is not unreasonable to assume that the latest-and-greatest version of
all the build-essential packages will be installed.
I wonder what world you are living in. It is in reality a
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 08:51:47PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
The definition is the following:
It is not be necessary to explicitly specify build-time relationships
on a minimal set of packages that are always needed to compile, link
and put in a Debian package a
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:21:55PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 2829T004006+1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
The purists have deemed debhelper to be build-unessential.
The purists happen to be the readership of debian-policy from last year.
Purists happen to be whoever disagrees
43 matches
Mail list logo
