Hello list
/etc/ppp/ip-up.d is processed by run-parts and therefore runs the
scripts in alphabetical order. But untill now I can't see any
script in this directory that uses numbered prefixes although
this would be usefull in some times.
(I've just added 00 to wwwoffle since I installed slrnpull
Roman Hodek wrote:
> > Also, this would rely on "debian/rules clean" completely reversing
> > the effect of a build, and I can tell you right now, this was not
> > true of *any* package I have adopted
>
> It's required to do so :-) And if you (like me) build sources during
> each round of the de
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 09:13:35AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I thought I remembered seeing a second from you on the echo -n policy
> proposal.
>
> However, looking at http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/48/48247.html,
> I don't see it.
>
> If you meant to second this proposal, could I get you to emai
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 10:16:16AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
[snip]
> I'm not arguing for a debian/build-deps file, I don't think it's needed. I
> just wanted to clarify some details about how to obtain them and in which
> cases they will be needed (assumably the maintainer will always have the
> r
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 03:48:07PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> In the first case, the *.dsc file is quite sufficient. You just have to keep
> it around. The "random files cluttering up the dirs" is not justified, IMHO,
> as the alternative (copying the information somewhere in the build
> d
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 08:27:01AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> The problem comes for the actual maintainer who wishes to update the
> source deps (and doesn't always use a .dsc, since he is just building a
> new package). The Build-* stuff should come from the debian/control file
> /after the pa
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 46522 [AMENDMENT 26/10/99] Amend non-free definition
Bug#46522: [PROPOSED] Simplified definition of Non-free
Changed Bug title.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator
> No, the problem is where to find the information after the source is
> unpacked. And you gave the answer: In the dsc file. It should be
> copied to the target directory (the parent directory of the package
> tree) by dpkg-source -x just as the orig.tar.gz file is.
[...]
> I think my idea above i
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 01:09:45PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 01:16:49PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> > Therefore my suggestion to store the src-dep information somewhere in
> > a file in the build tree. Do you have better ideas?
>
> I think my idea above is better, be
On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 01:16:49PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> I don't think it's magic... The problem I try to solve is the
> following: dpkg-buildpackage works on an unpacked source tree. But
> src-deps are stored in the .dsc (they really belong there, and this
> also allows src-dep checking befo
On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 11:10:24AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Ooops! You are right.
The earth shakes under my feet. Maybe those millenial apocalypse freaks
were right. Santiago speaking these words HAS to mean the eschaton is near.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Human beings rarely
> Also, this would rely on "debian/rules clean" completely reversing
> the effect of a build, and I can tell you right now, this was not
> true of *any* package I have adopted
It's required to do so :-) And if you (like me) build sources during
each round of the development cycle, you actually re
On 27-Oct-99 Joey Hess wrote:
> You're going overboard. Debian should not use compression methords like rar
> that are non-free. Nor should it use archive formats, like rar, that do not
> include unix permissions and ownership information.
Right! Rar is a good compressor, but it is shareware. :|
On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 04:26:50PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> I proposed to change the "Manual pages" section of our policy to get
> rid of the undocumented(7) symlinks.
I agree that this is a good idea (I'm seconding it).
--
Raul
On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 09:22:57PM +0100, Pedro Guerreiro wrote:
> > Permit/require use of bz2 for source packages (#39299)
> > * Under discussion.
> > * Proposed on 10 Jun 1999 by Chris Lawrence; seconded by Goswin
> > Brederlow, Josip Rodin and Josip Rodin.
>
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> debian/rules clean is already required to reverse the effects of the build.
In theory, yes. But unless you audit the .diff.gz, it's not
necessarily obvious if this fails. Now, I *do* audit my diffs, so I
know *exactly* where I've come up short (one packag
16 matches
Mail list logo
