Bug#5022: xinetd" does not build
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, llucius wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Boris D. Beletsky wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, llucius wrote:
>>
>> >Package: xinetd
>> >Version: 2.1.7-1
>> >
>> >1) "debian/control" specifies "i386" for Architecture when it should be "any".
>>
>> what do u mean - "any" ?
>> it's compiled for i386
>>
>Sorry, guess I should've been a bit clearer.
>
>What you say is correct, but specifying "any" for the Architecture field
>allows "dpkg-gencontrol" to put in the architecture for you. This way
>when someone with a different arch attempts to build it, everything will
>be automatic.
oh ok sure, didn't know
>> >2) "debian/rules" contains hardcoded (and unnecessary) architecture.
>>
>> hardcoded in "debian/rules" ?
>> what do u mean?
>>
>(I'm at work so doing this from memory...)
>
>I believe near the top of debian/rules that is a line that reads
>something like:
>
> a = i386
>
>This really isn't necessary since "dpkg" has the ability to correctly
>name the output file for you.
dpkg-name u mean?
>> >3) "debian/rules" attempts to build package as arch independent when it is
>> > actually dependent.
>>
>> that i cannot know since i have only i386 computers
>> move all the compile process to binary-arch ?
>>
>In this case, yes. This will allow "dpkg-buildpackage -b" to function
>properly.
so you are saying that xinetd doesn't compiles on anything but i386 -
thats why i should move it to binary-arch?
or move it there unless i fix thouse bugs?
thks
borik
___
"Boris D. Beletsky" <borik@isracom.co.il>
Nicaragua st. 3/15 Jerusalem Israel 96586
For pgp public key, e-mail me
with subject "get pgp-key"
___
"The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and
robbers there will be." -- Lao Tsu
--
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: