On 20010502T202937-0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Nah, I know how to munge things to produce its brand of ar files. :-)
That does not address my point.
(Anyway, I can only see a policy should supporting my view, so...)
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
On 20010501T114542-0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 30-Apr-01, 14:33 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could probably do without the latter two, but IIRC the deb format
is internal to dpkg and dpkg-deb is the only supported interface for
creating debs.
Not true:
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20010430T000601-0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Now you're tempting me to go make a package that builds without using
those nasty helper programs dpkg-deb, dpkg-gencontrol, and
dpkg-shlibdeps.. :-P
You could probably do without the latter two, but IIRC the deb
On 30-Apr-01, 14:33 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could probably do without the latter two, but IIRC the deb format
is internal to dpkg and dpkg-deb is the only supported interface for
creating debs.
Not true: .deb files are ar(1) archives containing two tar.gz
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:45:42AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 30-Apr-01, 14:33 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could probably do without the latter two, but IIRC the deb format
is internal to dpkg and dpkg-deb is the only supported interface for
creating
On 01-May-01, 12:19 (CDT), Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:45:42AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 30-Apr-01, 14:33 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You could probably do without the latter two, but IIRC the deb format
is
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 01:50:49PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
AFAIK, ar can't build .debs, even though they use an ar format.
There's a slight difference in the components.
While admitting that proof by example is not proof, I just used ar to
extract the components from an existing .deb
On 20010430T000601-0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Now you're tempting me to go make a package that builds without using
those nasty helper programs dpkg-deb, dpkg-gencontrol, and
dpkg-shlibdeps.. :-P
You could probably do without the latter two, but IIRC the deb format
is internal to dpkg and dpkg-deb
On 20010423T091432-0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
It's been discussed before. The problem is that most
debhelper Build-Depends actually need to be versioned[1], which won't
work with build-essential.
That's not the real reason. Take the definition of build-essential
packages from policy. It
Steve Greenland wrote:
*Nobody* can keep up with joeyh. :-)
You may find it easier now that I'm stuck behind this modem.
--
see shy jo
Steve Greenland wrote:
Ain't gonna happen. It's been discussed before. The problem is that most
debhelper Build-Depends actually need to be versioned[1], which won't
work with build-essential.
[1] I personally am not convinced this is the case (simply expecting
that the build-essentials
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I'm suggesting that build-depends could simply have an unversioned
depends on debhelper. The buildds would then always[1] have the latest
version of debhelper[2]. No effort required of the build-depends maint.
But build-time dependencies aren't
On 24-Apr-01, 05:25 (CDT), Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I'm suggesting that build-depends could simply have an unversioned
depends on debhelper. The buildds would then always[1] have the latest
version of debhelper[2]. No effort
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 02:24:42AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Package: tktable
Version: 2.6-2
Severity: normal
The source package needs debhelper to build.
I'd have expected that is a standard build dependency, guess we might
have to issue a policy request that the commonly accepted
On 23-Apr-01, 04:02 (CDT), Lars Steinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 02:24:42AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Package: tktable
Version: 2.6-2
Severity: normal
The source package needs debhelper to build.
I'd have expected that is a standard build dependency,
Ain't gonna happen. It's been discussed before. The problem is that most
debhelper Build-Depends actually need to be versioned[1], which won't
work with build-essential.
problem is when following unstable, one sometimes has debhelper depends change
fairly often. No sense forcing the
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 10:08:32AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
problem is when following unstable, one sometimes has debhelper
depends change fairly often. No sense forcing the build-depends
maint to keep up with joeyh's rapid upload rates.
That's a reasonable argument for now,
Bottom line, I think the short-term arguments against making debhelper
build-essential are decent, but long-term is another matter.
my understanding of build-essential is that the package gives people an easy
way to have a system capable of compiling a C(++) program. There is nothing in
it
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:20:01AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
my understanding of build-essential is that the package gives people
an easy way to have a system capable of compiling a C(++) program.
There is nothing in it that inherently gives one the ability to make
deb packages.
Were
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 12:46:25PM -0500, Chris Waters wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 10:08:32AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
problem is when following unstable, one sometimes has debhelper
depends change fairly often. No sense forcing the build-depends
maint to keep up with joeyh's
On 23-Apr-01, 12:08 (CDT), Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
problem is when following unstable, one sometimes has debhelper
depends change fairly often. No sense forcing the build-depends maint
to keep up with joeyh's
No, I'm suggesting that build-depends could simply have an
21 matches
Mail list logo
