Re: Building glibc 2.0.7 using hamm
On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On 29 Mar 1998, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> > Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
> >
> > > Am I correct that when a cvs binary is installed, the config process
> > > identifies it and configures cvs tests?
> >
> > This is all again much different.
> >
> > First, somebody who simply uses the tarball will never ever have any
> > use for the CVS rules in the Makefiles. Only if a sources is changed
> > some rules might trigger. Then it depends on whether the installer
> > keeps the sources in a *private* CVS archive or not. If not, there
> > are not CVS directories and nothing will happen. If there is a CVS
> > directory, it points to her/his own CVS archive and an automatical
> > checkin is ok.
> >
> > You miss probably that the CVS files are *not* part of the tarball.
> >
> I did remove the ./CVS node from the libc tree before I started making a
> Debian package (I also added the necessary "add-on"s as per normal).
>
No need to reply, I found the problem.
The ./CVS node in the root portion of the tree is not the only such
subdirectory in the tree. Each and every subdirectory seems to have its
own ./CVS directory. I suppose once I get them all pealed out that this
feature will go away.
Thanks for your patience,
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: