[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Static apt and dpkg done

On Tue, 9 May 2000, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:

> On Tue, 9 May 2000, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > I've just heard from m68k that building apt as indicated in the README
> > (http://panic.et.tudelft.nl/~costar/potato/upgrade-i386/source/) might fail
> > after the actual compile during dh_installdocs (or the like). Just repeating
> > the "fakeroot debian/rules -<var-stuff> binary" should continue building the
> > package without further problems. (Due to some weird dependency checks or
> > something...)
> Yes.  Also, fyi, I had to comment out the call to dpkg-shlibdeps, since
> that also fails on static binaries :-)  Oh, and the source package unpacks
> to have 2755 permissions on the debian dir (for dpkg only), which bombs
> compilation as well (had to chmod -R g-s *).

Strange. AFAIK i386 and m68k didn't have those problems. Maybe architectural
issues. Or a woody box? (Shouldn't be any problem, static=static)

> At any rate, both are built and on my ftp site, complete with signed
> .changes files (just in case)...
> ftp://spawn.besmarter.com/pub
> Look in the apt-static and dpkg-static dirs :-)

Excellent! I've just got them, seems to be fine. Only notably bigger than i386
and m68k, but that'll be the doubled word size ;-)


  Anne Bezemer

Reply to: