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

Re: Automatic Debug Packages

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>  Why is it not trivial?
> >
> > Because it requires editing the rules file for each such package?
> > (debhelper using packages all get tweaked in a single shot.)
> I suspect all cdbs using packages can be similarly tweaked

Uh... cdbs uses debhelper, so tweaking would be unecessary.

> Also, It is indeed trivial to add that to non-helper-package using
> packages, it just requires some editing (just like modufying helper
> packages will need editing).

Since it's trivial, I look forward to seeing patches from you to
implement policy once we decide it on all of the non-debhelper using
packages. [How many person-hours of labor are we talking about now?]

Don Armstrong

I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they
had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is
beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over
TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back.
 -- Compactable Dave http://www3.sympatico.ca/dcarpeneto/sco.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: