Re: debstd woes

Colin Watson wrote: > Unfortunately some packages still use it; there are 68 packages in the > archive that build-depend on it. It's not clear that use of debmake can > be considered a bug unless it's actually broken. And really quite a few more seem to use it according to the graph somewhere on m

Re: debstd woes

Colin Watson wrote: > Unfortunately some packages still use it; there are 68 packages in the > archive that build-depend on it. It's not clear that use of debmake can > be considered a bug unless it's actually broken. And really quite a few more seem to use it according to the graph somewhere on

Re: debstd woes

"CW" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CW> Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> debhelper isn't compliant with the latest policy (Change with example >> path). CW> I think you're misreading the upgrading-checklist (well, it could I've just read upgrading-checklist and

Re: debstd woes

"CW" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CW> Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> debhelper isn't compliant with the latest policy (Change with example >> path). CW> I think you're misreading the upgrading-checklist (well, it could I've just read upgrading-checklist and

Re: debstd woes

Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >debhelper isn't compliant with the latest policy (Change with example >path). I think you're misreading the upgrading-checklist (well, it could probably be clearer there anyway). debhelper is still correct to install examples in general into /usr/shar

Re: debstd woes

Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >debhelper isn't compliant with the latest policy (Change with example >path). I think you're misreading the upgrading-checklist (well, it could probably be clearer there anyway). debhelper is still correct to install examples in general into /usr/sha

Re: debstd woes

"CL" == Carlos Laviola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CL> On Sun, 20 May 2001 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Colin! >> >> > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: >> > >> > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) >> >> Hiehie, yea

Re: debstd woes

"CL" == Carlos Laviola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CL> On Sun, 20 May 2001 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Colin! >> >> > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: >> > >> > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) >> >> Hiehie, yea

Re: debstd woes

On Sun, 20 May 2001 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Colin! > > > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: > > > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) > > Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, > we'r

Re: debstd woes

On Sun, 20 May 2001 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Colin! > > > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: > > > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) > > Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, > we'

Re: debstd woes

On Sun, 20 May 2001 at 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe wrote: > Hi Colin! > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) > > Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, > we're already at 3.5.2 :P) > > Anyway, I fixed it (just used dh_make, etc.) > >

Re: debstd woes

Hi Colin! > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, we're already at 3.5.2 :P) Anyway, I fixed it (just used dh_make, etc.) I really think we should d

Re: debstd woes

On Sun, 20 May 2001 at 00:42:10 +0200, Abraham vd Merwe wrote: > Hi Colin! > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) > > Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, > we're already at 3.5.2 :P) > > Anyway, I fixed it (just used dh_make, etc.) >

Re: debstd woes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) wrote: >debmake/debstd's development was frozen some time ago, so I doubt it. >Most people [1] who use a helper package these days use debhelper. [1] http://kitenet.net/programs/debhelper/stats/ -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: debstd woes

Abraham van der Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've just upgraded one of my package's control files from 3.0.1 to 3.1.1 and >now I can't get the damn thing to build correctly. > >The one problem I'm having is with the configuration file. I have the >following in conffiles: > >< snip

Re: debstd woes

Hi Colin! > >However, if I run debstd, I get the following: > > One good question is "why are you still using debstd?" :) Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, we're already at 3.5.2 :P) Anyway, I fixed it (just used dh_make, etc.) I really think we should

Re: debstd woes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) wrote: >debmake/debstd's development was frozen some time ago, so I doubt it. >Most people [1] who use a helper package these days use debhelper. [1] http://kitenet.net/programs/debhelper/stats/ -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: debstd woes

Abraham van der Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've just upgraded one of my package's control files from 3.0.1 to 3.1.1 and >now I can't get the damn thing to build correctly. > >The one problem I'm having is with the configuration file. I have the >following in conffiles: > >< snip

debstd woes

Hi! I've just upgraded one of my package's control files from 3.0.1 to 3.1.1 and now I can't get the damn thing to build correctly. The one problem I'm having is with the configuration file. I have the following in conffiles: < snip <--< snip <--< snip < [EMAIL PR

debstd woes

Hi! I've just upgraded one of my package's control files from 3.0.1 to 3.1.1 and now I can't get the damn thing to build correctly. The one problem I'm having is with the configuration file. I have the following in conffiles: < snip <--< snip <--< snip < abz@oasi