1 Jan 2011 03:18
Re: adding a binary package to pd-cyclone
Jonas Smedegaard <dr <at> jones.dk>
2011-01-01 02:18:14 GMT
2011-01-01 02:18:14 GMT
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:49:53AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >On Dec 31, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >>On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:51:47AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner >>wrote: >>>On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 00:53 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>>>I suggest we only drop the control.in if noone use the .in file or >>>>it annoys someone. [...] >>>Ok, I hope its alright with everyone, I removed the control.in. [...] >>If you mean to say that the control.in annoys you, then fine. >> >>If, on the other hand, you mean to say that you guess noone use the >>.in file then you're wrong: I use it (as long as noone is annoyed >>by it). [...] >For the record, I'm not saying that no one uses the file, or that the >automatic Build-Depends handling isn't useful. I'm saying I think in >this package, the benefits of the control.in are smaller than the >disadvantages. For the record I am perfectly fine with dropping control.in "in this package" or any other package - as long as noone uses it or it annoys someone. If, on the other hand, someone use it and it does not annoy anyone - "in this package" or any other package - then it seems odd to rip it out. I am talking about "in this package" - and have been in all of the parts(Continue reading)




>
>I've pushed the basic switch (autotools + debhelper). Since you are
>more familiar with the get-orig-source rule, please you do it.
Ok 

RSS Feed