Re: dpkg development and gettext
On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Mark Baker wrote:
> > This is what all other upstream sources do and I think it should be okay
> > to include the gettext stuff inside the tarball of dpkg. This way dpkg
> > does not need gettext, automake, autoconf, or libtool to build.
> It may not need any of those to compile from the half-compiled form it's
> supplied in, which is all that's needed for it to be compiled for other
> architectures. However, it can't be compiled from _source_ without something
> that isn't in the main debian distribution, which I don't think is good
Then the logical extension is that you go through the dist and remove all
the other packages that are also in this form. Why are we making it
more difficult for people to author debian programs?
BTW, the proper term for your '_source_' above is what GNU likes to call
maintainer source (ie make maintainer-clean). It is not the same as
distribution source (make dist-clean) which is supposed to include things
that need not be rebuilt by end user (such as libtool, autoconf, gettext,
yacc output, automake, etc).
What you are saying is that it is not acceptable for a package to be in
main that used packages other than those are in main to create the
.tar.gz which I don't think is a usefull distinction.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .