[Pkg-mol-devel] [Pkg-mol-commits] r152 - in mol/trunk/debian: . debian.mol-source

[Jörg Sommer]

Hi Gaudenz,

can you bounce the message to the list? (In mutt press 'b'.)

Gaudenz Steinlin schrieb am Fri 28. Sep, 01:18 (+0200):
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Jörg Sommer wrote:
> > Gaudenz Steinlin schrieb am Wed 26. Sep, 23:39 (+0200):
> > > Some general remarks:
> > > - Please always also update the debian/changelog when commiting changes
> > >   (in the same commit)
> > 
> > Oh, sorry. I forgot to do this.
> 
> No problem. But you have to fix the changelog before the next upload :-)

I've added the items to the changelog yesterday. Are they okay? Do you
want more/less detailed descriptions?

> > > >   ?\194?\183 Rearranged the targets in the file: clean, build, binary.
> > > 
> > > OK, if you think it's better like this. I don't mind. Please place the
> > > "rm -r modules" call in the clean target and not in the binary-arch
> > > target.
> > 
> > I've put it there, because I think a second call of binary-arch
> > (without a cleanup before) would fail. The right way is IMO to create
> > the directory or the tar.bz2 in the build target.
> 
> I agree that building the tar.bz2 in the build target is the best
> solution.

But then we need root privileges to call chown in the build target.

> > > BTW did you ever check the pci-proxy support or the debugger?
> > 
> > I thought the pci-proxy support is already enabled. I think it's very
> > usable to access the Airport Extreme Card. I don't know the debugger,
> > but I think we should build it.
> 
> AFAIK neither is enabled in the defconfig. 

I try if it compiles with this options enabled. Unfortunely, I can't test
the binary, because I'm using kernel version 2.6.23.

> > Yes, I think we should put it there to, but remove there the stuff that's
> > not needed for mol-drivers-macos. I think every g-o-s target should fetch
> > the upstream tarball and build the debian tarball from it.
> > 
> > I like the g-o-s target, because a user can easily see what get's
> > changed and it is easy to adapt it to a new upstream release.
> 
> I clearly don't like the current g-o-s target. I have nothing against
> the idea of the having this target. This is a good thing. But the
> implementation has to use the same script which the maintainers use to
> produce the tarballs. And I don't want to manually copy the script into
> the debian tarball.

What do you think about not using a script and do all in the g-o-s
targets of the packages?

Bye, Jörg.
-- 
Der Wunsch, klug zu erscheinen, verhindert oft, es zu werden.
    	    	    			      (Francois de la Rochefoucauld)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mol-devel/attachments/20071002/f699189c/attachment.pgp