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

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Just curious, is there some reason udebs are not included in the normal
> binary target in rules?  I notice i386 and ppc have them in the archive,
> should I be worried about putting them in here too?

I suppose you're talking about the glib udebs and such that were made
for the as of yet not usable graphical d-i frontend. The best way to
build udebs currently is to use a recent version of debhelper, put
XC-Package-Type: udeb in the udeb's stanza of debian/rules, let the
standard build target bild it using all standard debhelper commands, and
that will take care of most everything needed to make a fine
policy-incompliant udeb.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: