Re: Building glibc 2.0.7 using hamm
On 29 Mar 1998, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
>
> > The two packages are cvs and tetex (actually it's makeinfo, but this
> > program is only found in the tetex packages).
>
> This is not correct.
>
> Dale, you are mixing installation from the CVS archive with
> installation from the tar ball which will be available. The later
> will have all the necessary files for the installation so that
> makeinfo is *not* necessary (and who wants the documents the manual in
> printable form can be expected to have TeX installed).
My mistake. I assumed that the CVS retrieved tree would be identical to
the tar ball. Thanks for clearing that up. I take this to mean that the
tarball will already have the info files pre-built?
>
> The files from the CVS archive on the other hand don't come with the
> info files since they are simply derived. Therefore you needed them.
>
This certainly helps with the texinfo issue.
Am I correct that when a cvs binary is installed, the config process
identifies it and configures cvs tests? Or is this an artifact of having
the cvs tree as well? I had to purge the Debian version of cvs to get the
config to recognize the local version and pass the tests.
I appologize for waving this in everyones face. It seemed to me (and still
does to some extent) that having the more up-to-date packages, with
functionality that was being used by upstream coders, is a desirable goal.
These were just the two that I happened to bang into.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
Still sigless
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: