Re: debmake question ...
> deb-make doesn't get libraries quite right yet anyhow (the sub-package
> template (1) gets miscopied, unless Christoph has fixed that (2) is
> incompatible with dpkg-source, at least at the moment, in how it
> creates the subpackage...) so I'd suggest using it to do the binary
> package stuff and then add on the library bits later (from a working
> example like libelf, perhaps, though it's a little kludgy too...)
Any better suggestions? :) I have done some work to improve libelf's
build process, but yes, it is still somewhat kludgy. I just can't figure
out a nice way of doing the separate shared and devel packages, which
_aren't_ catered for in the upstream makefile. (It just installs the
whole shebang...)
Still, it's a moderately fair start, I guess.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: