Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Brett Cundal]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:06:26AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> This is the message I got from A. Bunk who handed me the package :
> 
> >It's your package. One thing you could do when you start working on it is
> >to remove the conflict between xabacus and xmabacus - there are better
> >solutions in Debian when two packages share the same file.
> >
> >cu
> >Adrian
> 
> I'm just looking for the 'better solutions' he mentions but still clueless. 
> Any
> hint ?
> 

I don't know the details here, but can't you just modify the package to use
seperate config files for each binary so they no longer conflict?

The only other thing I can think of is to put the common files in one
package and have the other dependant on it... That might not be a good
solution though.

Just wanted to throw that out for comment...

-- Brett

dh_installinit and dh_installkpatches questions.

[Viral]

Hi,

I am packaging mosix, which is a cluster computing tool which does fault
tolerance, load balancing and process migration.

It comes as 2 kernel patches. One is a standard kernel patch which I handle
with dh_installkpatches. The other is a tar file, which has to be untarred
in /usr/src/linux.

Can I handle this too with dh_installkpatches ? How otherwise would be a good
way to do it ? Currently, I just have a note in README.Debian to do it
manually.

Also, with dh_installinit, the init.d script gets a default priority of
20. How do I change it ?

I tried dh_installinit -- defaults s90 k10

It makes the debs fine, but during installation, update-rc.d grumbles of
bad parameters. Am I using the wrong syntax ? I'm using debhelper 3.0.19.

Thanks,

viral

-- 
You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today.

Re: has xabacus been adopted ?

[Adrian Bunk]

On Thu, 17 May 2001, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:

> > It's your package. One thing you could do when you start working on it is
> > to remove the conflict between xabacus and xmabacus - there are better
> > solutions in Debian when two packages share the same file.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> I've been looking thru xabacus code for the last days and tried to resolve 
> this.
>
> Now, I haven't found yet a better solution "when 2 packages share the same 
> file". Policy is really strict about this :
>
> 11.7.4 Sharing configuration files
>
>Packages which specify the same file as `conffile' must be tagged as
>   conflicting with each other.
>
> Now at the moment the /etc/X11/app-defaults/Abacus file isn't tagged as 
> 'conffile' (or is it ?).
>...
> Any hint ?


/etc/X11/app-defaults/Abacus should be tagged as a conffile and you are
right, I forgot that this file should be a conffile. This prohibits a real
nice solution.

The only solution that seems to be possible is to include the app-defaults
only in xabacus and to let xmabacus depend on xabacus.
But that's not a real nice solution, too.

Independent from the question whether you let the conflict or if you
change the packages the last three lines of the description should be
removed - it doesn't sound good and a package installed using
"--force-overwrite" will confuse apt.


> I'll post on debian-mentors too.

Cc'ed because of this.

> Cheers,


Sorry for the confusion  :-(
Adrian

-- 
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi

Re: dh_installinit and dh_installkpatches questions.

[Colin Watson]

Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Also, with dh_installinit, the init.d script gets a default priority of
>20. How do I change it ?
>
>I tried dh_installinit -- defaults s90 k10
>
>It makes the debs fine, but during installation, update-rc.d grumbles of
>bad parameters. Am I using the wrong syntax ? I'm using debhelper 3.0.19.

You're slightly out: see update-rc.d(8). You probably want something
more like:

  dh_installinit -- defaults 90 10

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dh_installinit and dh_installkpatches questions.

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:18:18PM +0530, Viral wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am packaging mosix, which is a cluster computing tool which does fault
> tolerance, load balancing and process migration.
> 
> It comes as 2 kernel patches. One is a standard kernel patch which I handle
> with dh_installkpatches. The other is a tar file, which has to be untarred
> in /usr/src/linux.
> 
> Can I handle this too with dh_installkpatches ? How otherwise would be a good
> way to do it ? Currently, I just have a note in README.Debian to do it
> manually.

dh_installkpatches can't do this - does it have to be untarred? Why can't
you just make up a diff, and apply that with dh_installkpatches?

:) d

BTW, for kernel-patch-ulog, there was no straight-out diff, so I had to
apply it via patch-o-matic, and diff it against a clean source tree.

-- 
Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Does debhelper handle build-indep ?

[Julian Gilbey]

On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:17:02PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have a multi-binary package which produce arch-dependant .deb (binaries)
> and arch-independant (documentation).
[...]

Check out /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.multi*

   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
   Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/

forwarding bugs

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

I have forwarded a bug to an upstream maintainer doing the following:

  mail to the upstream maintainter
  cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  cc to the bug reporter

I have also received a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that told me that
the bug has been signed as forwarded.

But on my personal bugs page (bugs.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]) the bug
is still marker as outstanding.

Is this a delay or I have to do somethin else mailin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?

TIA,
cheers

-- 
- Zack -

Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"

Re: forwarding bugs

[Peter Palfrader]

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> I have forwarded a bug to an upstream maintainer doing the following:
> 
>   mail to the upstream maintainter
>   cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   cc to the bug reporter
> 
> I have also received a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that told me that
> the bug has been signed as forwarded.
> 
> But on my personal bugs page (bugs.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]) the bug
> is still marker as outstanding.
> 
> Is this a delay or I have to do somethin else mailin
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?

It would help if you told us the bug number you are talking about.

Index pages (by mntner, by package etc) are updated only every 4 or so
hours.

A bug's individual page (bugs.debian.org/) should be updated
as soon as mails are processed by the BTS (which is not immediatly when
mail arrives but only a few times per hours iirc). So by the time you
receive an ACK, the page should be up2date.

yours,
peter

-- 
 PGP signed and encrypted  |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' :By professionals,
   | `. `'  for professionals
 http://www.palfrader.org/ |   `-http://www.debian.org/

Re: Does debhelper handle build-indep ?

[Peter S Galbraith]

I should probably shut up about this, but something has always
bugged me (which means I'm probably doing it wrong).

Take for example /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.multi,
The targets are like so:

binary-indep: build install

binary-arch: build install

Both `binary-indep` and `binary-arch` depend on the build
target.  Why would you want to do a build (which will have
arch-specific components) for `binary-indep` ?

In my rules file for the gri package:

   http://cvs.sf.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gri/gri/debian/rules?rev=1.5

 the `binary-indep` does not depend on the `build` target (I use
other targets to build the docs).  The Build-Depends-Indep line
then does not have any entries to make the build target.  This
has the advantage that building an arch-specific binary package
does not waste CPU cycles building docs in the `build` target.

Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, but it seems to work well enough.

Peter

using conditionals in autoconf/automake

[Gustavo Noronha Silva]

Hello all,

I need help with stuff regarding a configure.in and a Makefile.am, I'm
stucked trying to find a way to make the 'make install' command
conditionally install some files.

I want it to test if GNOME is available (it is being done in configure),
if it is, make install will install aditional pics and applet configuration
files... if not, it won't install, how do I do it?

Another thing: what is needed to add an applet to gnome? I copied the
prg_appplet.desktop to /usr/share/applets/Network but it doesn't appear
in the selection menu.. I start the applet and next time I enter gnome
it seems not to know how to start it again so it doesn't apper (just as
a foot I mean)...

thanks for any help =)

[]s!

-- 
   Gustavo Noronha Silva - kov 
*--*
|  .''`.  | Debian GNU/Linux: |  (___)  |
| : :'  : | Debian BR...:  | < o o > |
| `. `'`  |  Be Happy! Be FREE!  |  \ ^ /  |
|   `-| "Think globally, act locally!"   |   (")   |
*--*

Re: using conditionals in autoconf/automake

[Peter S Galbraith]

Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:

> I need help with stuff regarding a configure.in and a Makefile.am, I'm
> stucked trying to find a way to make the 'make install' command
> conditionally install some files.
> 
> I want it to test if GNOME is available (it is being done in configure),
> if it is, make install will install aditional pics and applet configuration
> files... if not, it won't install, how do I do it?

Why don't you just build-depend on the GNOME stuff so that every
architecture will have a similar package?

That said, try AC_CHECK_PROG in configure.in to set a variable,
and then use that in the Makefile:

>From autoconf docs:

 - Macro: AC_CHECK_PROG (VARIABLE, PROG-TO-CHECK-FOR, VALUE-IF-FOUND [,
  VALUE-IF-NOT-FOUND [, PATH, [ REJECT ]]])
 Check whether program PROG-TO-CHECK-FOR exists in `PATH'.  If it
 is found, set VARIABLE to VALUE-IF-FOUND, otherwise to
 VALUE-IF-NOT-FOUND, if given.  Always pass over REJECT (an
 absolute file name) even if it is the first found in the search
 path; in that case, set VARIABLE using the absolute file name of
 the PROG-TO-CHECK-FOR found that is not REJECT.  If VARIABLE was
 already set, do nothing.  Calls `AC_SUBST' for VARIABLE.

Peter

Distributing a custom kernel for replicator

[Sebastien Chaumat]

Hello there,

 I plan to distribute a custom kernel for the installation bootdisk of 
replicator. This is mainly a monolitic kernel with all network cards 
drivers plus some networking option.


 My question is : can I compile this by hand and then only release the 
binary (along with the right .config of course) or should I build a 
automatic kernel builder?


Cheers,

SEb

Re: Distributing a custom kernel for replicator

[sharkey]

>   I plan to distribute a custom kernel for the installation bootdisk of 
> replicator. This is mainly a monolitic kernel with all network cards 
> drivers plus some networking option.
> 
>   My question is : can I compile this by hand and then only release the 
> binary (along with the right .config of course)

Are you planning on supporting all architectures?

That's a lot of kernels to build.

> or should I build a automatic kernel builder?

I'd think that would be better.

Eric

Re: Does debhelper handle build-indep ?

[Julian Gilbey]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 
> I should probably shut up about this, but something has always
> bugged me (which means I'm probably doing it wrong).
> 
> Take for example /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.multi,
> The targets are like so:
> 
> binary-indep: build install
> 
> binary-arch: build install
> 
> Both `binary-indep` and `binary-arch` depend on the build
> target.  Why would you want to do a build (which will have
> arch-specific components) for `binary-indep` ?

Great question!  Please check http://bugs.debian.org/72335 and
consider seconding it, so that we can at long last begin to resolve
this issue in a standard way.  It proposes the (optional) introduction
of two new targets: build-arch and build-indep which do -- guess what?
And build will depend on both.  (Of course, there may be packages for
which splitting the build is infeasible.  But that's not a problem;
just do it all in build-arch and have build-indep depend on
build-arch.)

   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
   Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/

Re: using conditionals in autoconf/automake

[Gustavo Noronha Silva]

Em Wed, 23 May 2001 10:52:20 -0400
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:

> Why don't you just build-depend on the GNOME stuff so that every
> architecture will have a similar package?
I won't just compile the gnome stuff in it cause I don't think my little 
program should depend on the *whole* gnome to work =) it doesn't need it 
but I think a gnome applet is good stuff to help if you have gnome already =)

I just couldn't "parse" what you meant with "so that every architecture
will have a similar package"... I'll surely build-depend in gnome
but I'll compile the program in 2 packages, one with gnome enabled and
other with gnome disabled

> That said, try AC_CHECK_PROG in configure.in to set a variable,
> and then use that in the Makefile:
something like AC_CHECK_PROG(TEST_GNOME, gnome-config, yes, no)?
there's one already but how do I check for it in Makefile.am?

>  already set, do nothing.  Calls `AC_SUBST' for VARIABLE.
I did a not-so-beatiful hack using AC_SUBST but I would still like to
know how to do it the Right Way (tm)

And I'm still wishing to know how to put in a new gnome applet =)

I have one more question... I set up new commands for distclean: and
clean: rules in my Makefile.am like this:

distclean:
rm -f `find . -name \*~`
rm -f po/*.gmo
clean:
rm -f `find . -name \*~`
rm -f po/*.gmo

but whenever I run make distclean/clean, I keep receiving messages like
this:

Makefile:453: warning: overriding commands for target `distclean'
Makefile:426: warning: ignoring old commands for target `distclean'

I did this change to avoid po/*.gmo being in the tar.gz when debianizing
it cause they're binary and they're modified so dpkg-source complains...
any clue about that?

[]s!

-- 
   Gustavo Noronha Silva - kov 
*--*
|  .''`.  | Debian GNU/Linux: |  (___)  |
| : :'  : | Debian BR...:  | < o o > |
| `. `'`  |  Be Happy! Be FREE!  |  \ ^ /  |
|   `-| "Think globally, act locally!"   |   (")   |
*--*

patching the kernel.

[Viral]

Hi,

How does one create a kernel patch.

I tried diff -r --new-files -u  

But the resulting patch didn't apply correctly.
I also noticed that my paths were hardcoded in the patch, but I believe
I can solve that by using relative paths.

Either ways, whats the correct way to create a patchfile ?

Thanks,

viral

-- 
I'll see you on the Dark Side of the Moon.

Re: using conditionals in autoconf/automake

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:06:01PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> I have one more question... I set up new commands for distclean: and
> clean: rules in my Makefile.am like this:
> 
> distclean:
> rm -f `find . -name \*~`
> rm -f po/*.gmo
> clean:
> rm -f `find . -name \*~`
> rm -f po/*.gmo
> 
> but whenever I run make distclean/clean, I keep receiving messages like
> this:
> 
> Makefile:453: warning: overriding commands for target `distclean'
> Makefile:426: warning: ignoring old commands for target `distclean'

Use distclean-local and clean-local, read the texinfo docs on automake,
section "Extending" (near the bottom).

-- 
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK


pgpTvuQxZcaLz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: using conditionals in autoconf/automake

[Ove Kaaven]

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:

> I need help with stuff regarding a configure.in and a Makefile.am, I'm
> stucked trying to find a way to make the 'make install' command
> conditionally install some files.

Well, here's what one of my projects do:

configure.in:
...
AC_CHECK_LIB(ncurses, initscr)
AM_CONDITIONAL(HAVE_LIBNCURSES, test "$ac_cv_lib_ncurses_initscr" = yes)
...

Makefile.am:
AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = foreign
if HAVE_LIBNCURSES
NCURSES_CLIENT = ncurses-client
else
NCURSES_CLIENT =
endif
bin_PROGRAMS = $(NCURSES_CLIENT) ...other-clients...
...

Re: forwarding bugs

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:49:38PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> It would help if you told us the bug number you are talking about.

the bug is #96254, package xstr.

and this is the mail that i received after forwarding the bug:

   Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 05:18:34 -0500
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System)
   To: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Cc: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Subject: Bug#96252: marked as forwarded (netstring_0.9.3-1 build
   failure on m68k)

   Your message dated Tue, 22 May 2001 12:05:34 +0200
   with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   has caused the Debian Bug report #96252,
   regarding netstring_0.9.3-1 build failure on m68k
   to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
   author(s) Gerd Stolpmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

   (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
   talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
   somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

   Darren Benham
   (administrator, Debian Bugs database)

but at http://bugs.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] i found:

   Serious policy violations - outstanding
   (A list of all such bugs used to be available).

   * #96254: xstr_0.2-1 build failure on m68k
 Package: xstr; Severity: serious; Reported by: Rick Younie
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 19 days old.

TIA,
cheers.

-- 
- Zack -

Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"


pgpMn4Gwyjy1F.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Distributing a custom kernel for replicator

[Sebastien Chaumat]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I plan to distribute a custom kernel for the installation bootdisk of 
replicator. This is mainly a monolitic kernel with all network cards 
drivers plus some networking option.


 My question is : can I compile this by hand and then only release the 
binary (along with the right .config of course)




Are you planning on supporting all architectures?



The first release of replicator in woody will be for i386.

I must find alpha/sparc/ppc hardware before supporting those arch.

Note that alpha and sparc support is already in replicator but it need
testing.



That's a lot of kernels to build.


Good remark.





or should I build a automatic kernel builder?



I'd think that would be better.



Noted :-)



Eric


SEb




--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: forwarding bugs

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 06:51:42PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:49:38PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > It would help if you told us the bug number you are talking about.
> 
> the bug is #96254, package xstr.

oops, i made a mistake on the bug number, really sorry.
My bug is 96254 and i sent mail to 96252.

Sorry again

-- 
- Zack -

Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"


pgpCx1Ofb0yCN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Does debhelper handle build-indep ?

[Peter S Galbraith]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-


Julian Gilbey wrote:

> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > I should probably shut up about this, but something has always
> > bugged me (which means I'm probably doing it wrong).
> > 
> > Take for example /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.multi,
> > The targets are like so:
> > 
> > binary-indep: build install
> > 
> > binary-arch: build install
> > 
> > Both `binary-indep` and `binary-arch` depend on the build
> > target.  Why would you want to do a build (which will have
> > arch-specific components) for `binary-indep` ?
> 
> Great question!  Please check http://bugs.debian.org/72335 and
> consider seconding it, so that we can at long last begin to resolve
> this issue in a standard way.  It proposes the (optional) introduction
> of two new targets: build-arch and build-indep which do -- guess what?
> And build will depend on both.  (Of course, there may be packages for
> which splitting the build is infeasible.  But that's not a problem;
> just do it all in build-arch and have build-indep depend on
> build-arch.)
> 
>Julian

I have read the thread, and I second it as ammended.

Peter

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBOwvz5LwVH8jSqROhAQFEPAQApo5+ZLIc9x0pPTa0yrkGzrZa0Y5RxMbY
RwSVXilQ7v9Rk2XWCKKYRHg76zzCVX4H6/fEgT8MHbf5J8zZoxSSwLRY49RjlE0c
CeC8OE8WxQw7R5czeP5VdPZtY+gqsSVDxTnPHTv6o67z5OHLF2vXvRhnz3ToktdM
X3bJF+0z+qo=
=ZKIk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: debstd woes

[Joey Hess]

Colin Watson wrote:
> Unfortunately some packages still use it; there are 68 packages in the
> archive that build-depend on it. It's not clear that use of debmake can
> be considered a bug unless it's actually broken.

And really quite a few more seem to use it according to the graph
somewhere on my web site. The number is really not going down much
either.

-- 
see shy jo

Re: Does debhelper handle build-indep ?

[Bill Allombert]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:22:15AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Does the policy requires this ? (I read it but it was unclear (to me:))
> 
> Yes, in section 5.2 (`debian/rules' - the main building script):
> 
>   `binary-arch' builds the binary packages which are specific to a
>   particular architecture, and `binary-indep' builds those which are
>   not.

Thanks for pointing me to /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.multi

What is the purpose of binary-indep? The way I set up the Makefile
(like in example/rules.multi) when I do a debian/rules binary-indep(or arch),
the build target is made and the whole package is compiled, so there is no big
won to use binary-indep(or arch)). Should I add a build-indep and a build-arch?
If it save time to autobuilders, I will do it. However I check out some
packages with -doc, and they don't happen to do it.


Bill. (please CC:)

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Sami Haahtinen]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:06:26AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> I'm just looking for the 'better solutions' he mentions but still clueless.
> Any hint ?

for lib{pam,nss}-ldap i used debconf to share the common data, and just made
the packages use renamed config files.

it makes things easy for the user when (s)he enters the data once and it's
re-used in the other package too. This just leaves you with the situation where
you need to have a way to configure the packages differently too.

-- 
  -< Sami Haahtinen >-
-< 2209 3C53 D0FB 041C F7B1  F908 A9B6 F730 B83D 761C >-

Re: Does debhelper handle build-indep ?

[Peter S Galbraith]

Bill Allombert wrote:

> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:22:15AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> >   `binary-arch' builds the binary packages which are specific to a
> >   particular architecture, and `binary-indep' builds those which are
> >   not.
> 
> Thanks for pointing me to /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.multi
> 
> What is the purpose of binary-indep? 

Like he said:  `binary-indep' makes the architecture _all_
package(s), if there are any.

>  The way I set up the Makefile
> (like in example/rules.multi) when I do a debian/rules
> binary-indep(or arch), the build target is made and the whole
> package is compiled, so there is no big won to use binary-indep(or
> arch)). 

Right. Which is why I seconded  http://bugs.debian.org/72335
  
>  Should I add a build-indep and a build-arch?  qIf it save
> time to autobuilders, I will do it. However I check out some
> packages with -doc, and they don't happen to do it.

I do.

Peter

Re: [new package]Should all the rm scripts be ok before uploading?

[R?mi Perrot]

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 07:18:00PM +0200, Sebastien Chaumat wrote:
> 
> Ok I'll find 2 tests machine.
> 
You also may use User mode Linux to play with virtual Debian machine

Rémi Perrot


pgpdbhJrfP6zm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Joey Hess]

Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> >It's your package. One thing you could do when you start working on it is
> >to remove the conflict between xabacus and xmabacus - there are better
> >solutions in Debian when two packages share the same file.
> >
> >cu
> >Adrian
> 
> I'm just looking for the 'better solutions' he mentions but still clueless. 
> Any
> hint ?

One possibility would be to not use a conffile, but generate the
conffile in your postinst if it does not exist. This still leaves open
the question about how you figure out it's safe to remove the conffile.
The packages would each have to remove it on purge iff the other package
was already purged.

-- 
see shy jo

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Eric Van Buggenhaut]

On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 01:42:58AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 04:22:41AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I just adopted xabacus.
> > 
> > It conflicts with xmabacus because both try to install
> > the same config file /etc/X11/app-defaults/Abacus.
> > 
> maybe using an abacus-common package which owns that conffile...
> 
> my question now is, is a file worth of a package on its own?!?

Thank you for your answer. Probably not, especially since this file is +- 10
lines long.

-- 
Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Eric Van Buggenhaut]

On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:11:48PM -0700, Brett Cundal wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:06:26AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > This is the message I got from A. Bunk who handed me the package :
> > 
> > >It's your package. One thing you could do when you start working on it is
> > >to remove the conflict between xabacus and xmabacus - there are better
> > >solutions in Debian when two packages share the same file.
> > >
> > >cu
> > >Adrian
> > 
> > I'm just looking for the 'better solutions' he mentions but still clueless. 
> > Any
> > hint ?
> > 
> 
> I don't know the details here, but can't you just modify the package to use
> seperate config files for each binary so they no longer conflict?
> 
> The only other thing I can think of is to put the common files in one
> package and have the other dependant on it... That might not be a good
> solution though.
> 

Thank for your comment.
Answer to your question is : probably not, the 2 binary files do the same
thing. The only difference is that they are built against different libraries
(motif/non-motif). The config file just sets thing like the size of the abacus,
etc. That's why we use 1 config file for both versions.

> Just wanted to throw that out for comment...

Any comment is always welcomme :-)

-- 
Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Eric Van Buggenhaut]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:30:13PM +0300, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:06:26AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > I'm just looking for the 'better solutions' he mentions but still clueless.
> > Any hint ?
> 
> for lib{pam,nss}-ldap i used debconf to share the common data, and just made
> the packages use renamed config files.
> 
> it makes things easy for the user when (s)he enters the data once and it's
> re-used in the other package too. This just leaves you with the situation 
> where
> you need to have a way to configure the packages differently too.

OK, I'll have a look at your packages, thanks.

-- 
Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Eric Van Buggenhaut]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 02:49:03PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > >It's your package. One thing you could do when you start working on it is
> > >to remove the conflict between xabacus and xmabacus - there are better
> > >solutions in Debian when two packages share the same file.
> > >
> > >cu
> > >Adrian
> > 
> > I'm just looking for the 'better solutions' he mentions but still clueless. 
> > Any
> > hint ?
> 
> One possibility would be to not use a conffile, but generate the
> conffile in your postinst if it does not exist. This still leaves open
> the question about how you figure out it's safe to remove the conffile.
> The packages would each have to remove it on purge iff the other package
> was already purged.

It seems the best solution indeed. Is there a way to know if a package has been 
purged ? dpkg --test-purge ?

-- 
Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Joey Hess]

Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> It seems the best solution indeed. Is there a way to know if a package has 
> been purged ? dpkg --test-purge ?

You'll have to play with dpkg -s | grep Status: I guess

-- 
see shy jo

Re: has xabacus been adopted ?

[Adrian Bunk]

On Thu, 17 May 2001, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:

> > It's your package. One thing you could do when you start working on it is
> > to remove the conflict between xabacus and xmabacus - there are better
> > solutions in Debian when two packages share the same file.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> I've been looking thru xabacus code for the last days and tried to resolve this.
>
> Now, I haven't found yet a better solution "when 2 packages share the same file". 
>Policy is really strict about this :
>
> 11.7.4 Sharing configuration files
>
>Packages which specify the same file as `conffile' must be tagged as
>   conflicting with each other.
>
> Now at the moment the /etc/X11/app-defaults/Abacus file isn't tagged as 'conffile' 
>(or is it ?).
>...
> Any hint ?


/etc/X11/app-defaults/Abacus should be tagged as a conffile and you are
right, I forgot that this file should be a conffile. This prohibits a real
nice solution.

The only solution that seems to be possible is to include the app-defaults
only in xabacus and to let xmabacus depend on xabacus.
But that's not a real nice solution, too.

Independent from the question whether you let the conflict or if you
change the packages the last three lines of the description should be
removed - it doesn't sound good and a package installed using
"--force-overwrite" will confuse apt.


> I'll post on debian-mentors too.

Cc'ed because of this.

> Cheers,


Sorry for the confusion  :-(
Adrian

-- 
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dh_installinit and dh_installkpatches questions.

[Colin Watson]

Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Also, with dh_installinit, the init.d script gets a default priority of
>20. How do I change it ?
>
>I tried dh_installinit -- defaults s90 k10
>
>It makes the debs fine, but during installation, update-rc.d grumbles of
>bad parameters. Am I using the wrong syntax ? I'm using debhelper 3.0.19.

You're slightly out: see update-rc.d(8). You probably want something
more like:

  dh_installinit -- defaults 90 10

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dh_installinit and dh_installkpatches questions.

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:18:18PM +0530, Viral wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am packaging mosix, which is a cluster computing tool which does fault
> tolerance, load balancing and process migration.
> 
> It comes as 2 kernel patches. One is a standard kernel patch which I handle
> with dh_installkpatches. The other is a tar file, which has to be untarred
> in /usr/src/linux.
> 
> Can I handle this too with dh_installkpatches ? How otherwise would be a good
> way to do it ? Currently, I just have a note in README.Debian to do it
> manually.

dh_installkpatches can't do this - does it have to be untarred? Why can't
you just make up a diff, and apply that with dh_installkpatches?

:) d

BTW, for kernel-patch-ulog, there was no straight-out diff, so I had to
apply it via patch-o-matic, and diff it against a clean source tree.

-- 
Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Does debhelper handle build-indep ?

[Julian Gilbey]

On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:17:02PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have a multi-binary package which produce arch-dependant .deb (binaries)
> and arch-independant (documentation).
[...]

Check out /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.multi*

   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
   Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

forwarding bugs

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

I have forwarded a bug to an upstream maintainer doing the following:

  mail to the upstream maintainter
  cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  cc to the bug reporter

I have also received a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that told me that
the bug has been signed as forwarded.

But on my personal bugs page ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) the bug
is still marker as outstanding.

Is this a delay or I have to do somethin else mailin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?

TIA,
cheers

-- 
- Zack -

Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: forwarding bugs

[Peter Palfrader]

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> I have forwarded a bug to an upstream maintainer doing the following:
> 
>   mail to the upstream maintainter
>   cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   cc to the bug reporter
> 
> I have also received a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that told me that
> the bug has been signed as forwarded.
> 
> But on my personal bugs page ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) the bug
> is still marker as outstanding.
> 
> Is this a delay or I have to do somethin else mailin
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?

It would help if you told us the bug number you are talking about.

Index pages (by mntner, by package etc) are updated only every 4 or so
hours.

A bug's individual page (bugs.debian.org/) should be updated
as soon as mails are processed by the BTS (which is not immediatly when
mail arrives but only a few times per hours iirc). So by the time you
receive an ACK, the page should be up2date.

yours,
peter

-- 
 PGP signed and encrypted  |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' :By professionals,
   | `. `'  for professionals
 http://www.palfrader.org/ |   `-http://www.debian.org/


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

using conditionals in autoconf/automake

[Gustavo Noronha Silva]

Hello all,

I need help with stuff regarding a configure.in and a Makefile.am, I'm
stucked trying to find a way to make the 'make install' command
conditionally install some files.

I want it to test if GNOME is available (it is being done in configure),
if it is, make install will install aditional pics and applet configuration
files... if not, it won't install, how do I do it?

Another thing: what is needed to add an applet to gnome? I copied the
prg_appplet.desktop to /usr/share/applets/Network but it doesn't appear
in the selection menu.. I start the applet and next time I enter gnome
it seems not to know how to start it again so it doesn't apper (just as
a foot I mean)...

thanks for any help =)

[]s!

-- 
   Gustavo Noronha Silva - kov 
*--*
|  .''`.  | Debian GNU/Linux: |  (___)  |
| : :'  : | Debian BR...:  | < o o > |
| `. `'`  |  Be Happy! Be FREE!  |  \ ^ /  |
|   `-| "Think globally, act locally!"   |   (")   |
*--*


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: using conditionals in autoconf/automake

[Peter S Galbraith]

Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:

> I need help with stuff regarding a configure.in and a Makefile.am, I'm
> stucked trying to find a way to make the 'make install' command
> conditionally install some files.
> 
> I want it to test if GNOME is available (it is being done in configure),
> if it is, make install will install aditional pics and applet configuration
> files... if not, it won't install, how do I do it?

Why don't you just build-depend on the GNOME stuff so that every
architecture will have a similar package?

That said, try AC_CHECK_PROG in configure.in to set a variable,
and then use that in the Makefile:

>From autoconf docs:

 - Macro: AC_CHECK_PROG (VARIABLE, PROG-TO-CHECK-FOR, VALUE-IF-FOUND [,
  VALUE-IF-NOT-FOUND [, PATH, [ REJECT ]]])
 Check whether program PROG-TO-CHECK-FOR exists in `PATH'.  If it
 is found, set VARIABLE to VALUE-IF-FOUND, otherwise to
 VALUE-IF-NOT-FOUND, if given.  Always pass over REJECT (an
 absolute file name) even if it is the first found in the search
 path; in that case, set VARIABLE using the absolute file name of
 the PROG-TO-CHECK-FOR found that is not REJECT.  If VARIABLE was
 already set, do nothing.  Calls `AC_SUBST' for VARIABLE.

Peter


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Distributing a custom kernel for replicator

[Sebastien Chaumat]

Hello there,

  I plan to distribute a custom kernel for the installation bootdisk of 
replicator. This is mainly a monolitic kernel with all network cards 
drivers plus some networking option.

  My question is : can I compile this by hand and then only release the 
binary (along with the right .config of course) or should I build a 
automatic kernel builder?

Cheers,

SEb


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Distributing a custom kernel for replicator

[sharkey]

>   I plan to distribute a custom kernel for the installation bootdisk of 
> replicator. This is mainly a monolitic kernel with all network cards 
> drivers plus some networking option.
> 
>   My question is : can I compile this by hand and then only release the 
> binary (along with the right .config of course)

Are you planning on supporting all architectures?

That's a lot of kernels to build.

> or should I build a automatic kernel builder?

I'd think that would be better.

Eric


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Does debhelper handle build-indep ?

[Julian Gilbey]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 
> I should probably shut up about this, but something has always
> bugged me (which means I'm probably doing it wrong).
> 
> Take for example /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.multi,
> The targets are like so:
> 
> binary-indep: build install
> 
> binary-arch: build install
> 
> Both `binary-indep` and `binary-arch` depend on the build
> target.  Why would you want to do a build (which will have
> arch-specific components) for `binary-indep` ?

Great question!  Please check http://bugs.debian.org/72335 and
consider seconding it, so that we can at long last begin to resolve
this issue in a standard way.  It proposes the (optional) introduction
of two new targets: build-arch and build-indep which do -- guess what?
And build will depend on both.  (Of course, there may be packages for
which splitting the build is infeasible.  But that's not a problem;
just do it all in build-arch and have build-indep depend on
build-arch.)

   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
   Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: using conditionals in autoconf/automake

[Gustavo Noronha Silva]

Em Wed, 23 May 2001 10:52:20 -0400
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:

> Why don't you just build-depend on the GNOME stuff so that every
> architecture will have a similar package?
I won't just compile the gnome stuff in it cause I don't think my little 
program should depend on the *whole* gnome to work =) it doesn't need it 
but I think a gnome applet is good stuff to help if you have gnome already =)

I just couldn't "parse" what you meant with "so that every architecture
will have a similar package"... I'll surely build-depend in gnome
but I'll compile the program in 2 packages, one with gnome enabled and
other with gnome disabled

> That said, try AC_CHECK_PROG in configure.in to set a variable,
> and then use that in the Makefile:
something like AC_CHECK_PROG(TEST_GNOME, gnome-config, yes, no)?
there's one already but how do I check for it in Makefile.am?

>  already set, do nothing.  Calls `AC_SUBST' for VARIABLE.
I did a not-so-beatiful hack using AC_SUBST but I would still like to
know how to do it the Right Way (tm)

And I'm still wishing to know how to put in a new gnome applet =)

I have one more question... I set up new commands for distclean: and
clean: rules in my Makefile.am like this:

distclean:
rm -f `find . -name \*~`
rm -f po/*.gmo
clean:
rm -f `find . -name \*~`
rm -f po/*.gmo

but whenever I run make distclean/clean, I keep receiving messages like
this:

Makefile:453: warning: overriding commands for target `distclean'
Makefile:426: warning: ignoring old commands for target `distclean'

I did this change to avoid po/*.gmo being in the tar.gz when debianizing
it cause they're binary and they're modified so dpkg-source complains...
any clue about that?

[]s!

-- 
   Gustavo Noronha Silva - kov 
*--*
|  .''`.  | Debian GNU/Linux: |  (___)  |
| : :'  : | Debian BR...:  | < o o > |
| `. `'`  |  Be Happy! Be FREE!  |  \ ^ /  |
|   `-| "Think globally, act locally!"   |   (")   |
*--*


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

patching the kernel.

[Viral]

Hi,

How does one create a kernel patch.

I tried diff -r --new-files -u  

But the resulting patch didn't apply correctly.
I also noticed that my paths were hardcoded in the patch, but I believe
I can solve that by using relative paths.

Either ways, whats the correct way to create a patchfile ?

Thanks,

viral

-- 
I'll see you on the Dark Side of the Moon.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: using conditionals in autoconf/automake

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:06:01PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> I have one more question... I set up new commands for distclean: and
> clean: rules in my Makefile.am like this:
> 
> distclean:
> rm -f `find . -name \*~`
> rm -f po/*.gmo
> clean:
> rm -f `find . -name \*~`
> rm -f po/*.gmo
> 
> but whenever I run make distclean/clean, I keep receiving messages like
> this:
> 
> Makefile:453: warning: overriding commands for target `distclean'
> Makefile:426: warning: ignoring old commands for target `distclean'

Use distclean-local and clean-local, read the texinfo docs on automake,
section "Extending" (near the bottom).

-- 
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK

 PGP signature

Re: using conditionals in autoconf/automake

[Ove Kaaven]

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:

> I need help with stuff regarding a configure.in and a Makefile.am, I'm
> stucked trying to find a way to make the 'make install' command
> conditionally install some files.

Well, here's what one of my projects do:

configure.in:
...
AC_CHECK_LIB(ncurses, initscr)
AM_CONDITIONAL(HAVE_LIBNCURSES, test "$ac_cv_lib_ncurses_initscr" = yes)
...

Makefile.am:
AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = foreign
if HAVE_LIBNCURSES
NCURSES_CLIENT = ncurses-client
else
NCURSES_CLIENT =
endif
bin_PROGRAMS = $(NCURSES_CLIENT) ...other-clients...
...


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: forwarding bugs

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:49:38PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> It would help if you told us the bug number you are talking about.

the bug is #96254, package xstr.

and this is the mail that i received after forwarding the bug:

   Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 05:18:34 -0500
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System)
   To: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Cc: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Subject: Bug#96252: marked as forwarded (netstring_0.9.3-1 build
   failure on m68k)

   Your message dated Tue, 22 May 2001 12:05:34 +0200
   with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   has caused the Debian Bug report #96252,
   regarding netstring_0.9.3-1 build failure on m68k
   to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
   author(s) Gerd Stolpmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

   (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
   talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
   somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

   Darren Benham
   (administrator, Debian Bugs database)

but at http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] i found:

   Serious policy violations - outstanding
   (A list of all such bugs used to be available).

   * #96254: xstr_0.2-1 build failure on m68k
 Package: xstr; Severity: serious; Reported by: Rick Younie
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 19 days old.

TIA,
cheers.

-- 
- Zack -

Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"

 PGP signature

Re: Distributing a custom kernel for replicator

[Sebastien Chaumat]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>>  I plan to distribute a custom kernel for the installation bootdisk of 
>>replicator. This is mainly a monolitic kernel with all network cards 
>>drivers plus some networking option.
>>
>>  My question is : can I compile this by hand and then only release the 
>>binary (along with the right .config of course)
>>
> 
> Are you planning on supporting all architectures?


The first release of replicator in woody will be for i386.

I must find alpha/sparc/ppc hardware before supporting those arch.

Note that alpha and sparc support is already in replicator but it need
testing.


> That's a lot of kernels to build.

Good remark.


> 
>>or should I build a automatic kernel builder?
>>
> 
> I'd think that would be better.


Noted :-)


> Eric

SEb


> 
> --  
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 




--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: forwarding bugs

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 06:51:42PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:49:38PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > It would help if you told us the bug number you are talking about.
> 
> the bug is #96254, package xstr.

oops, i made a mistake on the bug number, really sorry.
My bug is 96254 and i sent mail to 96252.

Sorry again

-- 
- Zack -

Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"

 PGP signature

Re: Does debhelper handle build-indep ?

[Peter S Galbraith]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-


Julian Gilbey wrote:

> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:09:03AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > I should probably shut up about this, but something has always
> > bugged me (which means I'm probably doing it wrong).
> > 
> > Take for example /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.multi,
> > The targets are like so:
> > 
> > binary-indep: build install
> > 
> > binary-arch: build install
> > 
> > Both `binary-indep` and `binary-arch` depend on the build
> > target.  Why would you want to do a build (which will have
> > arch-specific components) for `binary-indep` ?
> 
> Great question!  Please check http://bugs.debian.org/72335 and
> consider seconding it, so that we can at long last begin to resolve
> this issue in a standard way.  It proposes the (optional) introduction
> of two new targets: build-arch and build-indep which do -- guess what?
> And build will depend on both.  (Of course, there may be packages for
> which splitting the build is infeasible.  But that's not a problem;
> just do it all in build-arch and have build-indep depend on
> build-arch.)
> 
>Julian

I have read the thread, and I second it as ammended.

Peter

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBOwvz5LwVH8jSqROhAQFEPAQApo5+ZLIc9x0pPTa0yrkGzrZa0Y5RxMbY
RwSVXilQ7v9Rk2XWCKKYRHg76zzCVX4H6/fEgT8MHbf5J8zZoxSSwLRY49RjlE0c
CeC8OE8WxQw7R5czeP5VdPZtY+gqsSVDxTnPHTv6o67z5OHLF2vXvRhnz3ToktdM
X3bJF+0z+qo=
=ZKIk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debstd woes

[Joey Hess]

Colin Watson wrote:
> Unfortunately some packages still use it; there are 68 packages in the
> archive that build-depend on it. It's not clear that use of debmake can
> be considered a bug unless it's actually broken.

And really quite a few more seem to use it according to the graph
somewhere on my web site. The number is really not going down much
either.

-- 
see shy jo


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Does debhelper handle build-indep ?

[Bill Allombert]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:22:15AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Does the policy requires this ? (I read it but it was unclear (to me:))
> 
> Yes, in section 5.2 (`debian/rules' - the main building script):
> 
>   `binary-arch' builds the binary packages which are specific to a
>   particular architecture, and `binary-indep' builds those which are
>   not.

Thanks for pointing me to /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.multi

What is the purpose of binary-indep? The way I set up the Makefile
(like in example/rules.multi) when I do a debian/rules binary-indep(or arch),
the build target is made and the whole package is compiled, so there is no big
won to use binary-indep(or arch)). Should I add a build-indep and a build-arch?
If it save time to autobuilders, I will do it. However I check out some
packages with -doc, and they don't happen to do it.


Bill. (please CC:)


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Sami Haahtinen]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:06:26AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> I'm just looking for the 'better solutions' he mentions but still clueless.
> Any hint ?

for lib{pam,nss}-ldap i used debconf to share the common data, and just made
the packages use renamed config files.

it makes things easy for the user when (s)he enters the data once and it's
re-used in the other package too. This just leaves you with the situation where
you need to have a way to configure the packages differently too.

-- 
  -< Sami Haahtinen >-
-< 2209 3C53 D0FB 041C F7B1  F908 A9B6 F730 B83D 761C >-


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Does debhelper handle build-indep ?

[Peter S Galbraith]

Bill Allombert wrote:

> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:22:15AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> >   `binary-arch' builds the binary packages which are specific to a
> >   particular architecture, and `binary-indep' builds those which are
> >   not.
> 
> Thanks for pointing me to /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.multi
> 
> What is the purpose of binary-indep? 

Like he said:  `binary-indep' makes the architecture _all_
package(s), if there are any.

>  The way I set up the Makefile
> (like in example/rules.multi) when I do a debian/rules
> binary-indep(or arch), the build target is made and the whole
> package is compiled, so there is no big won to use binary-indep(or
> arch)). 

Right. Which is why I seconded  http://bugs.debian.org/72335
  
>  Should I add a build-indep and a build-arch?  qIf it save
> time to autobuilders, I will do it. However I check out some
> packages with -doc, and they don't happen to do it.

I do.

Peter


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [new package]Should all the rm scripts be ok before uploading?

[R?mi Perrot]

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 07:18:00PM +0200, Sebastien Chaumat wrote:
> 
> Ok I'll find 2 tests machine.
> 
You also may use User mode Linux to play with virtual Debian machine

Rémi Perrot

 PGP signature

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Joey Hess]

Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> >It's your package. One thing you could do when you start working on it is
> >to remove the conflict between xabacus and xmabacus - there are better
> >solutions in Debian when two packages share the same file.
> >
> >cu
> >Adrian
> 
> I'm just looking for the 'better solutions' he mentions but still clueless. Any
> hint ?

One possibility would be to not use a conffile, but generate the
conffile in your postinst if it does not exist. This still leaves open
the question about how you figure out it's safe to remove the conffile.
The packages would each have to remove it on purge iff the other package
was already purged.

-- 
see shy jo


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Eric Van Buggenhaut]

On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 01:42:58AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 04:22:41AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I just adopted xabacus.
> > 
> > It conflicts with xmabacus because both try to install
> > the same config file /etc/X11/app-defaults/Abacus.
> > 
> maybe using an abacus-common package which owns that conffile...
> 
> my question now is, is a file worth of a package on its own?!?

Thank you for your answer. Probably not, especially since this file is +- 10
lines long.

-- 
Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Eric Van Buggenhaut]

On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:11:48PM -0700, Brett Cundal wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:06:26AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > This is the message I got from A. Bunk who handed me the package :
> > 
> > >It's your package. One thing you could do when you start working on it is
> > >to remove the conflict between xabacus and xmabacus - there are better
> > >solutions in Debian when two packages share the same file.
> > >
> > >cu
> > >Adrian
> > 
> > I'm just looking for the 'better solutions' he mentions but still clueless. Any
> > hint ?
> > 
> 
> I don't know the details here, but can't you just modify the package to use
> seperate config files for each binary so they no longer conflict?
> 
> The only other thing I can think of is to put the common files in one
> package and have the other dependant on it... That might not be a good
> solution though.
> 

Thank for your comment.
Answer to your question is : probably not, the 2 binary files do the same
thing. The only difference is that they are built against different libraries
(motif/non-motif). The config file just sets thing like the size of the abacus,
etc. That's why we use 1 config file for both versions.

> Just wanted to throw that out for comment...

Any comment is always welcomme :-)

-- 
Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Eric Van Buggenhaut]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:30:13PM +0300, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:06:26AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > I'm just looking for the 'better solutions' he mentions but still clueless.
> > Any hint ?
> 
> for lib{pam,nss}-ldap i used debconf to share the common data, and just made
> the packages use renamed config files.
> 
> it makes things easy for the user when (s)he enters the data once and it's
> re-used in the other package too. This just leaves you with the situation where
> you need to have a way to configure the packages differently too.

OK, I'll have a look at your packages, thanks.

-- 
Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Eric Van Buggenhaut]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 02:49:03PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> > >It's your package. One thing you could do when you start working on it is
> > >to remove the conflict between xabacus and xmabacus - there are better
> > >solutions in Debian when two packages share the same file.
> > >
> > >cu
> > >Adrian
> > 
> > I'm just looking for the 'better solutions' he mentions but still clueless. Any
> > hint ?
> 
> One possibility would be to not use a conffile, but generate the
> conffile in your postinst if it does not exist. This still leaves open
> the question about how you figure out it's safe to remove the conffile.
> The packages would each have to remove it on purge iff the other package
> was already purged.

It seems the best solution indeed. Is there a way to know if a package has been purged 
? dpkg --test-purge ?

-- 
Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 2 packages sharing the same config file.

[Joey Hess]

Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> It seems the best solution indeed. Is there a way to know if a package has been 
>purged ? dpkg --test-purge ?

You'll have to play with dpkg -s | grep Status: I guess

-- 
see shy jo


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Creating a Packages and Sources file.

[Viral]

Hi,

If I have uploaded experimental pacakages to my homepage, how do I make the
required Packages and Sources files so that the packages can be used with
apt-get ?

viral

-- 
I'll see you on the Dark Side of the Moon.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dbootstrap

[Adam Di Carlo]

Andrew D Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm working my way through a peculiar install (the box is a briq from
> Total Impact http://www.totalimpact.com ).  The box is booting over the
> network and I haven't been able to run dbootstrap. 

What architecture?

> I've managed to
> activate and mount the swap partition and mount the root partition which
> lets me boot the box in single user mode.

You are booting the install system in single user mode?  You are
forced to do this?  Why?

> My problem is that I can't
> change to runlevel 2 or 3.
> When I turned debugging on in /etc/init.d/rc it would hang on
> #telinit 1

Uh, booting from the install system (stuff on root.bin), I've never
tried telinit.  Let's just say that's "unsupported".

> as well.  Anyway I was trying to find out what dbootstrap does to the
> init scripts. 

Nothing, really.  I mean, it does fudge around a bit with
/target/etc/inittab if that's what you mean?

Confused...

> I can't find the source to dbootstrap and I was wondering
> if someone could point me to where it lives so that I could take a look
> at it.

It's in the boot-floppies package.

-- 
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onshored.com/>


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]