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

Bug#5022: xinetd" does not build



On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Boris D. Beletsky wrote:

> >> >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?
> 
Actually, dpkg allows "dpkg --build debian/tmp .." that does the renaming.

> 
> >> >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?
> 
Well, the reason to move it to binary-arch is that the contents of the 
output ".deb" file IS architecture dependent.  So it really should be 
built in the binary-arch target.

Thanks,

Leland

__ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth!
   oo o  oo o  o  | 
    o       o   o | llucius@millcomm.com
 o oo    o     o  | 
-- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius       (maybe one day)

--
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: