Hi, Jérôme Warnier wrote: > > Which is broken, too. Are we Ubuntu? no. we are Debian so the sarge > > clause has to be in the Debian clause otherwise it has no effect because > > on Debian the Debian clause will be used. Always. > No, look carefully, I put it in the else clause of the 'ifeq "$(DIST)" > "Ubuntu"'. So, if it is Ubuntu, it does not even try to check if it is > Sarge. > And there is no Debian clause here. Ah, sorry. You are right. My bad. Moved up. > I wondered to be able to help with the backport as soon as possible. > That's why I also ask where I could get the sources in the meantime. Well, the backport is mainly done already with -2. I just need to build and test it... > > I am already doing one (which I can do with -2 already). Give people > > some time to actually build/try/test it... > I want to participate, and I will apparently use a slightly different > one, because I will probably try to remove the dependency to KDE also. Why? :) Let the users decide whether they will use KDE :) That stuff is perfectly buildable on sarge; the versioned builddep just is for forcing to built against the C++-transitioned KDE in sid. > If you could send me the latest debian/rules, I could work for myself on it. Well, there are already changes for -3 in there. And I don't really like backports of unofficial/still-in-development stuff since that then differs from the normal packages they are supposed to be backported from. Regards, Rene
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature