Previously Piotr Roszatycki wrote: > I'm afraid dpkg 1.4.1 is stable version and couldn't be modified. What do you mean, couldn't be modified? If you mean you couldn't commit changes into the CVS you're right. Only a few people have access to that. > Should I take experimental dpkg 1.5.1? No. > I think the dpkg as standalone program should be portable to system without > GNU utils (like mv, xargs). Of course GNU make is required, but it could be > easly resolved by /usr/bin/dpkg-make symlink. It will always require GNU utils such as autoconf, gettext, make, etc. I also don't see what you would gain with a dpkg-make symlink. Wichert. -- ________________________________________________________________ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | wichert@liacs.nl http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Attachment:
pgpNZUr2GR5Rb.pgp
Description: PGP signature