Re: RFS: lockrun
Hello,
Thank you all for the suggestions/comments, etc.
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 10:43:19AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> I'd rather reply with few questions ;-) -- it seems that the
> command-option.patch is not applied before building stage causing your
> help2man call to fail, since the binary knows nothing about --help. What is
> your idea of how to apply (before building) and unapply (on cleaning) that
> patch?
In my debian/rules I have the following line:
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/simple-patchsys.mk
This should automatically apply and clean the patches. It works on my system.
When you debuild it does CDBS not handle patches on your system?
I am using version 0.4.52 and my package Build-Depends on cdbs (>= 0.4.42).
> The patch looks quite innocent, but did you forward it upstream?
No I hadn't, so thanks for the suggesttion. I have now emailed
Stephen J. Friedl with a link, an explantion and a request that
he reviews and includes my patch in his version.
> Also, you should build your package in a clean sid environment (see
> debootstrap and cowbuilder), which helps identification of missed
> build-dependencies, like help2man for instance.
Erk, shame on me. I should have known this. Fixed now.
> gpg: signature packet without keyid
Yes, very strange indeed. I use two subkeys but this has been no
problem for me on my system or in fact for those who have signed
my key. I am using gnupg 1.4.6-3 FWIW.
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 10:56:36PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> ifneq ($(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE),$(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE))
> CROSSCC=$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)-gcc
> else
> CROSSCC=$(CC)
> endif
>
> $(CROSSCC) $(CFLAGS) lockrun.c -o lockrun
I have updated the package to use this.
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 05:59:35PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > You might want to set a default for $(CC) if using that:
> > CC:=cc
>
> make already defines one by default:
I have not added this line based on your advice.
Would you mind taking another look at this package following these changes?
Thanks,
--
Noah Slater - Bytesexual <http://bytesexual.org/>
Reply to: