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

Re: Assistance with getting Debian-cd to include source code



Hello Steve,

Many thanks for that it worked perfectly.

I had actually tried putting source in the ARCHES line within build.sh
before I had e-mailed the list, but like with the many early attempts
with getting debian-cd to work it mysteriously failed.  

I am seriously wondering if it was the fact that I was lazy and used
gnome terminal (as root) instead of doing it from a pure shell, though
it shouldn't make any difference.

I guess it is going to remain one of lifes mysteries as to why it did
not work the first time.

Now I just have to tweak it to make jigdo images.

The really good thing about this is that during my tests I accidently
worked out how to create multi-arch images.

Once again thanks for the assistance in this.

Regards,

Christopher.

On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 23:47 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 11:26:30AM +1300, Christopher Gregory wrote:
> >Hello Everyone,
> >
> >Well for some unknown reason, debian-cd decided to work for me after my
> >earlier post that the subversion build would not work.
> >
> >I now really would appreciate assistance as I can not find out from
> >google nor the help file for debian-cd how I am meant to get it to
> >produce dvd's of the source code.
> >
> >The build_all.sh script included with debian-cd says that it will build
> >the sources, however after trying multiple times it only produces
> >the .iso files for the binary packages.
> >
> >It is not listed anywhere in the CONF.sh file, though I have tried
> >putting it there as an export like this:
> >
> > export SOURCE=1  ( which did not work)
> >export INC_SOURCE=1  (also did not work)
> >export INC_SOURCE=yes  ( I found this in the Makefile, but also this did
> >not work).
> 
> "./build.sh source"
> 
> should do what you need. Source is treated as (essentially) just
> another architecture at the top level. Older versions treated source
> specially, but not any more.
> 



Reply to: