Re: OOo2 backport to Sarge
Le samedi 05 novembre 2005 à 00:07 +0100, Rene Engelhard a écrit :
> 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 must admit you made me hesitate for a few seconds...
> > 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...
Well, I did test it, and I found the problems I reported.
Why do you feel it somewhat unuseful then?
Again, I want to help, and not bother you too much, because you seem on
pressure those days. ;-)
Relax...
> > > 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 :)
Well, I would like to use it at least on a custom Debian we made
(Librassoc: http://www.bxlug.be/librassoc), which is thought for quite
old PC, with only GNOME.
So, if I can avoid the requirements on KDElibs and some time at build,
better.
> That stuff is perfectly buildable on sarge; the versioned builddep just
> is for forcing to built against the C++-transitioned KDE in sid.
This is not the problem.
> > 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.
I understand, but only for me, to make me happy, hmmm? ;-)
It's just to diverge the less possible from your version. I promise I
will just make a diff and apply the interesting part. :-D
> Regards,
>
> Rene
Reply to: