Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 17:43, Joey Hess wrote:
> 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.
Hmm, I'll read this as "Don't worry about it unless you want to work on
graphical d-i"... Meanwhile, vanilla d-i is not yet ready for ARM, nor
is ARM a great development platform for graphical anything, so I won't
worry about it just yet; but will follow your instructions if/when I do.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!