Re: ITK: debmake

On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 02:50:36PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Saturday 31 December 2005 18.48, Osamu Aoki wrote: > [debmake] > > > As I see in debian-reference: This should have been developers-reference :-) > > --- > > A.3.2 debmake > > > [...] > > However, it's not a bug to use debma

Re: ITK: debmake

On Saturday 31 December 2005 18.48, Osamu Aoki wrote: [debmake] > As I see in debian-reference: > --- > A.3.2 debmake > [...] > However, it's not a bug to use debmake. > --- > I should remove last sentence from all translations. Or just drop mention of debmake alltogether? The description of the

Re: ITK: debmake

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As I see in debian-reference: > --- > A.3.2 debmake > > debmake, a precursor to debhelper, is a more coarse-grained debian/rules > assistant. It includes two main programs: deb-make, which can be used to > help

Re: ITK: debmake

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 07:13:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > There are less than 80 packages in unstable still using it, and there > is an excellent package called debhelper which can do everything that > debmake does and probably much better, so it does not make much sense > to keep debmake al

Re: ITK: debmake

Ok, to make things gradual, this is what I plan to do: * Announce this in -devel-announce to celebrate the new year. * Wait a few weeks. * Submit wishlist bugs against all packages affected (which I hope they will not be as much as 78 by then). * After the release of etch, debmake will be remov

Re: ITK: debmake

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Friday 30 December 2005 03.18, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Santiago: > > > As a realistic goal, I estimate that etch will be the last release > > > containing debmake, but of course, I would be deligthed to see it > > > happen sooner. > > > > It woul

Re: ITK: debmake

On Friday 30 December 2005 03.18, Anthony Towns wrote: > Santiago: > > As a realistic goal, I estimate that etch will be the last release > > containing debmake, but of course, I would be deligthed to see it > > happen sooner. > > It would be pretty lame if we couldn't do this in less than a year..

Re: ITK: debmake

Santiago Vila wrote: > Therefore, I hereby announce my Intention To Kill debmake. Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James R. Van Zandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >emacspeak I think this has been orphaned, and is waiting for adoption. Cc'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Frank -- Frank Kü

Re: ITK: debmake

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 07:13:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > Stage 2. "Please switch away from debmake". > This is the stage that starts today. So, everybody please, switch away > from debmake. [...] > *) If you are the maintainer of lintian or a similar tool, you are welcome > to add a check t

Re: ITK: debmake

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 10:59:22AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I've adopted gnubg with Corrin's permission and this is now fixed in the > version just uploaded yesterday. Here's an updated and now hopefully complete list that also takes into account build-depends-indep. Removing gnubg from the l

Re: ITK: debmake

Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Corrin Lakeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >gnubg I've adopted gnubg with Corrin's permission and this is now fixed in the version just uploaded yesterday. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- To UNSUBSCR

Re: ITK: debmake

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 07:13:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > There are less than 80 packages in unstable still using it, and there > is an excellent package called debhelper which can do everything that > debmake does and probably much better, so it does not make much sense > to keep debmake al