Re: Should libfile-temp-perl be removed ?
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 04:26:37PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > I'm currently the Maintainer of libfile-temp-perl which as of perl 5.6.1 > > > is > > > included in the main Perl distribution. As the package is now redundant > > > should I file a bug against ftp.debian.org asking for it's removal. > > > > Or replace it by a dummy package which says "you can remove me now". > > A nasty hack that should not be necessary in this case. Thanks for the advice, [ I'm CC'ing debian-perl in-case the Perl Maintainer's have any views, I guess any other discussion should happen there ] OK, I'll file a bug against ftp.debian.org acessing for libfile-temp-perl's removal after perl-modules 5.6.1-3 has reached testing. -- Jon "Along with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, there is freedom to share generally useful information with other people. This should be an inalienable right." Richard M. Stallman, creator of the GNU Public License. pgpLkoO6ypGlo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Multiple sections in the control file.
Hi,
I'm maintaining mosix. The control file has sections for 3 packages,
the binaries, devel files and kernel patch.
Now, the devel files should have Section: devel and the rest should have
Section: net
How do I specify this in the control file ?
Also, I changed the priority of my packages to extra.
The funny thing is that the changes are not reflected in the first package
listed in the control file, though they are reflected in the next 2
entries.
I am attaching my control file hereby.
Thanks,
viral
--
And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too,
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.
Source: mosix
Section: net
Priority: extra
Maintainer: Viral Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 3.0.0)
Standards-Version: 3.5.2
Package: mosix
Architecture: i386
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}
Suggests: kernel-patch-mosix (= 1.0.2)
Description: Cluster computing tool with fault tolerance and process migration
MOSIX is a software package that enhance the Linux kernel with cluster
computing capabilities. The enhanced kernel allows any size cluster of
X86/Pentium/AMD based workstations and servers to work cooperatively
as if part of a single system.
.
This package contains the utilities to use a mosix multicomputer.
Package: mosix-dev
Architecture: i386
Depends: libc6-dev
Suggests: mosix (= 1.0.2)
Description: Header files for mosix
MOSIX is a software package that enhance the Linux kernel with cluster
computing capabilities. The enhanced kernel allows any size cluster of
X86/Pentium/AMD based workstations and servers to work cooperatively
as if part of a single system.
.
This package contains the header files and static libraries.
Package: kernel-patch-mosix
Architecture: i386
Depends: patch
Recommends: kernel-package (>> 7.01)
Description: Kernel patch for mosix
MOSIX is a software package that enhance the Linux kernel with cluster
computing capabilities. The enhanced kernel allows any size cluster of
X86/Pentium/AMD based workstations and servers to work cooperatively
as if part of a single system.
.
This package contains the mosix kernel patch for the 2.4.4 kernel.
Re: Multiple sections in the control file.
Thus spoke Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 2001-05-31 15:01:25: > > Now, the devel files should have Section: devel and the rest should have > Section: net > > How do I specify this in the control file ? > Also, I changed the priority of my packages to extra. > Add a Section: to each package. Like this: Package: foobar Section: games Package: foobar-dev Section: devel Cheers, -- Gergely Nagy \ mhp/|8] pgpmjPhxbEx7u.pgp Description: PGP signature
ITAP: SGI Performance Co-Pilot 2.2.0 now available
The license (which is in the download directory of the FTP server and presumably in the source package as well) is GPL 2.1. This package is a very powerful and exciting way of measuring performance of a network of machines. If used correctly it can allow you to visualise the way that load on one machine correlates with load on another. For example you could view web hits, disk access, and CPU load of all machines and notice that a high rate of web hits means lots of disk access on the web servers and CPU usage on the database server! However I believe that this package requires more time than I have available and that I can't do it on my own without neglecting my work on other packages. So I am announcing my intention to assist in packaging PCP. I will test it, assist in debugging it, and upload the result if the packager is not yet a Debian developer. I think that this would be a good opportunity for a new developer to learn about packaging. Recently some people have expressed interest in joining the Debian project but not had any definate plans for what to package, this might be something for them to investigate. -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: [linuxperf] [ANNOUNCE] SGI Performance Co-Pilot 2.2.0 now available Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:37:27 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] SGI is pleased to announce the new version of Performance Co-Pilot (PCP) open source (version 2.2.0-18) is now available for download from http://oss.sgi.com/projects/pcp/download PCP is an extensible system monitoring package with a client/server architecture. It provides a distributed unifying abstraction for all interesting performance statistics in /proc and assorted applications (e.g. Apache). The PCP library APIs are robust and well documented, supporting rapid deployment of new and diverse sources of performance data and the development of sophisticated performance monitoring tools. There are binary RPMs for ia32 and ia64, the source RPM and tar.gz files. The source should also build and work for Linux-ppc, Linux-alpha and most other Linux platforms. The PCP homepage is at http://oss.sgi.com/projects/pcp and you can join the PCP mailing list via http://oss.sgi.com/projects/pcp/mail.html This release (2.2.0-18) adds five new PCP agents and associated runtime libraries, many new metrics, numerous important build and bug fixes (particularly for IA64) and a large number of small changes as we merged and reconciled the IRIX and open source trees. SGI would like to thank those who contributed to this release, especially Michal Kara, Laurent Demailly, Alan Baily, Alexander L. Belikoff, the SGI PCP engineering team, and others. A list of changes since the last open source release (which was version 2.1.10, released 20-Oct-2000) is in /usr/doc/pcp-2.2.0/CHANGELOG after installation, or at http://oss.sgi.com/projects/pcp/latest.html Thanks and enjoy! -- Mark Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SGI Engineering - Linuxperf:Working list for the Linux Performance tuning site Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linuxperf/ Web site: http://linuxperf.nl.linux.org/ --- -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Multiple sections in the control file.
* Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010531 11:38]: > > Now, the devel files should have Section: devel and the rest should have > > Section: net > > Add a Section: to each package. > > Like this: Also, see pop3lite if you want an example. ;-) -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple sections in the control file.
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 11:38:49AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Thus spoke Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 2001-05-31 15:01:25: > > > > Now, the devel files should have Section: devel and the rest should have > > Section: net > > > > How do I specify this in the control file ? > > Also, I changed the priority of my packages to extra. > > > Package: foobar > Section: games > > Package: foobar-dev > Section: devel I tried that, but it doesn't seem to work. It seems to be ignored, because after installing them, and using apt-cache show, I don't get the correct result. Moreover, it ignores the Section for the first package. viral -- You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today.
dh_makeshlibs
Hi, dh_makeshlibs puts ldconfig in postinst and postrm. However, lintian complains about ldconfig being run from postrm, and refers to ch. 9 of the policy. What am I missing here, or is it only applicable to a specific case ? Thanks, viral -- Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time. Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines. pgpE8AnIHXP90.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Multiple sections in the control file.
Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I tried that, but it doesn't seem to work. > It seems to be ignored, because after installing them, and using > apt-cache show, I don't get the correct result. "apt-cache show" sometimes displays multiple records. Are you sure you're not looking at the wrong one? In any case, "dpkg -I foo.deb" is probably a better guide. -- Robbe signature.ng Description: PGP signature
pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > When I installed pure-ftpd_0.98.4-1_i386.deb , at the end of the > install pure-ftpd said "Starting ftp server: pure-ftpd" and nothing > else happened, i.e. I do not have the prompt, "enter" do not give me > the prompt.If I do a ps I cans see that perl and debconf are still > runing. I've killed the processes but my pure-ftp server seems to > work. I stopped and started pure-ftpd and there is no problem, I don't > know if it is a bug but it's really minor. grr. I was hoping that was just happening to me. At that point everything is fine, so you don't need to worry. The hang is at the end of the postinst, when some debhelper-generated shell calls "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start". The init.d script starts pure-ftpd and exits successfully, but the postinst goes zombie after that: [orr](0) % ps axfw PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND 29349 pts/4S 0:01 \_ dpkg -i /var/debian/standard/pure-ftpd_0.98.4-4_i386.deb 29366 pts/4S 0:00 \_ /usr/bin/perl -w /usr/share/debconf/frontend /var/lib/dpkg/info/pure-ftpd.postinst config 29368 pts/4Z 0:00 \_ [pure-ftpd.posti ] This is weird, because the only thing left in the postinst is: [orr](0) % tail /var/lib/dpkg/info/pure-ftpd.postinst # End automatically added section # Automatically added by dh_installinit if [ -e "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd" ]; then update-rc.d pure-ftpd defaults >/dev/null /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start fi # End automatically added section exit 0 Does anyone know what could cause this? Jason
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 10:36:34AM -0400, Jason Lunz wrote: > > When I installed pure-ftpd_0.98.4-1_i386.deb , at the end of the > > install pure-ftpd said "Starting ftp server: pure-ftpd" and nothing > > else happened, i.e. I do not have the prompt, "enter" do not give me > > the prompt.If I do a ps I cans see that perl and debconf are still > > runing. I've killed the processes but my pure-ftp server seems to > > work. I stopped and started pure-ftpd and there is no problem, I don't > > know if it is a bug but it's really minor. > > grr. I was hoping that was just happening to me. > > At that point everything is fine, so you don't need to worry. The hang > is at the end of the postinst, when some debhelper-generated shell calls > "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start". The init.d script starts pure-ftpd and > exits successfully, but the postinst goes zombie after that: > > [orr](0) % ps axfw > PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND > 29349 pts/4S 0:01 \_ dpkg -i > /var/debian/standard/pure-ftpd_0.98.4-4_i386.deb > 29366 pts/4S 0:00 \_ /usr/bin/perl -w > /usr/share/debconf/frontend /var/lib/dpkg/info/pure-ftpd.postinst config > 29368 pts/4Z 0:00 \_ [pure-ftpd.posti ] > > This is weird, because the only thing left in the postinst is: > > [orr](0) % tail /var/lib/dpkg/info/pure-ftpd.postinst > # End automatically added section > # Automatically added by dh_installinit > if [ -e "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd" ]; then > update-rc.d pure-ftpd defaults >/dev/null > /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start > fi > # End automatically added section > > > exit 0 > > Does anyone know what could cause this? Debconf. Redirect the output of the init script to stderr, that is, add >&2. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: dh_makeshlibs
Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >dh_makeshlibs puts ldconfig in postinst and postrm. >However, lintian complains about ldconfig being run from postrm, and refers >to ch. 9 of the policy. > >What am I missing here, or is it only applicable to a specific case ? You're missing bugs #82479, #92236, #93655, and #95283. ;) As far as I know, debhelper's code is fine - no doubt Shaleh would appreciate it if somebody came up with a good patch for lintian. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> This is weird, because the only thing left in the postinst is: >> [orr](0) % tail /var/lib/dpkg/info/pure-ftpd.postinst >> # End automatically added section >> # Automatically added by dh_installinit >> if [ -e "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd" ]; then >> update-rc.d pure-ftpd defaults >/dev/null >> /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start >> fi >> # End automatically added section >> Does anyone know what could cause this? > Debconf. Redirect the output of the init script to stderr, that is, add >&2. Is there a way to have debhelper do that? Or should I just not be using debhelper for this and put correct code in the postinst myself? And if so, is that a bug in debhelper? I would think it should be debconf-aware, or at least have the option to be. Jason
Re: Need help on Unlicensed packages (Themes)
Colin Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, 28 May 2001 21:57:30 +1000 >Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >|On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 01:31:14PM +0100, Colin Fowler wrote: >|> No Readme - no License - no Copyright. I just took them all, put them >|> together >|> Copyright: >|> Each theme remains the copyright of its respective authors. >| >|Hi Colin, >|I don't have specific reference here, but AFAIK you need specific copyright >|and licensing from the upstream authors. paranoia was pulled from bsdgames >|because of an ambiguous license/copyright (it was more or less taken from a >|magazine article). So, I suggest contacting the upstream authors and asking >|for a license and copyright. > >Ackk I suspected as much - What sort of License do you put a theme under tho? >Its just pictures - Just so I can suggest to these guys if they are >confused over which to pick - If they mail be back saying - "Dude no >License - just use the damn things!" I suppose I can stick in "Public >domain" :) In order to say that it's public domain, you'll need to get an explicit disclaimer of copyright from the authors. (That is, "no copyright" means that it defaults to us not being able to use it at all - public domain takes an explicit statement of renunciation of copyright.) Something like the X11 licence (http://www.x.org/terms.htm) might be a reasonably simple one to recommend. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Autoconf test for Debian?
Hello mentors. I've been thinking about an autoconf test I have for checking that my package is being created on a Debian system. The reason is that I have a very small set of diffs that I want applied to the package only for Debian, and hope at some stage to feed these diffs upstream (things like file paths, etc). My test I have now is: > AC_MSG_CHECKING(for Debian) > if test -f /etc/debian_version ; then > AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) > INSTALL="/usr/bin/install" > AC_SUBST(INSTALL) > DEBIAN="yes" > AC_SUBST(DEBIAN) > else > AC_MSG_RESULT(no) ...and all other changes in scripts are based on "#ifdef DEBIAN". Is using /etc/debian_version the right thing to do, or is there a better/more accurate way to determine this? Existence of /usr/bin/dpkg? Existence of /var/lib/dpkg? Thanks, James -- James Bromberger www.rcpt.to/~james * * C u in Bordeaux - 1st Debian Conference, July 2001 * * Remainder moved to http://www.rcpt.to/~james/james/sig.html pgpdVhJpPYKL2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
Je Thu, 31 May 2001 11:54:09 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Lunz) scribis: > >> # Automatically added by dh_installinit > >> if [ -e "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd" ]; then > >> update-rc.d pure-ftpd defaults >/dev/null > >> /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start > >> fi > >> # End automatically added section > > Debconf. Redirect the output of the init script to stderr, that is, add >&2. > > Is there a way to have debhelper do that? I put a db_stop before #DEBHELPER# in my scripts. Maybe that'll solve the problem for you? -itai
Re: Autoconf test for Debian?
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 12:18:30AM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> I've been thinking about an autoconf test I have for checking that my package
> is being created on a Debian system. The reason is that I have a very small
> set of diffs that I want applied to the package only for Debian, and hope
> at some stage to feed these diffs upstream (things like file paths, etc).
I'm really confused about what the purpose of this is.
If you're packaging existing source for Debian, then just make the
changes, and they'll show up in the package's .diff file.
If you are the author of the code in question, or want to propose
changes to the upstream author, make things customizable in a generic
manner, then set them appropriately in debian/rules.
For example, if the issue is the location of a config file, then
change the code to use, e.g. ${sysconfdir}/bla.conf, then call
"./configure --sysconfdir=/etc" in debian/rules.
> ...and all other changes in scripts are based on "#ifdef DEBIAN".
Euh ... basing _any_ source variations on DEBIAN strikes me as a
really bad idea, in general. Use the power of autoconf to do things
in a generic manner, then specialize them for debian in debian/rules.
Regards,
-Steve
--
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants
Re: Autoconf test for Debian?
I would avoid this sort of thing if I were you. If I were upstream I would not accept such patches, and even when I am upstream I like to keep debian specific stuff out of the upstream source. Autoconf only exists because unix standardization is poor, we don't want Linux distributions to balkanize in the same way unix has. Britton Kerin __ GNU GPL: "The Source will be with you... always." On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, James Bromberger wrote: > > Hello mentors. > > > I've been thinking about an autoconf test I have for checking that my package > is being created on a Debian system. The reason is that I have a very small > set of diffs that I want applied to the package only for Debian, and hope > at some stage to feed these diffs upstream (things like file paths, etc). > > My test I have now is: > > > AC_MSG_CHECKING(for Debian) > > if test -f /etc/debian_version ; then > > AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) > > INSTALL="/usr/bin/install" > > AC_SUBST(INSTALL) > > DEBIAN="yes" > > AC_SUBST(DEBIAN) > > else > > AC_MSG_RESULT(no) > > ...and all other changes in scripts are based on "#ifdef DEBIAN". Is using > /etc/debian_version the right thing to do, or is there a better/more accurate > way to determine this? Existence of /usr/bin/dpkg? Existence of /var/lib/dpkg? > > > Thanks, > James > -- > James Bromberger www.rcpt.to/~james > >* * C u in Bordeaux - 1st Debian Conference, July 2001 * * > Remainder moved to http://www.rcpt.to/~james/james/sig.html >
Re: Multiple sections in the control file.
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 03:52:36PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I tried that, but it doesn't seem to work. > > It seems to be ignored, because after installing them, and using > > apt-cache show, I don't get the correct result. > > "apt-cache show" sometimes displays multiple records. Are you sure > you're not looking at the wrong one? > > In any case, "dpkg -I foo.deb" is probably a better guide. I knew apt-cache was showing multiple records, but I was checking the right one. But you're right, dpkg -I is a much better guide, and I'd set the Sections entry per package just like Gergely had mentioned in a reply to my mail. Thanks to everyone for the help ! :) viral -- "Live for today, gone tomorrow, that's me, HaHaHaa!" pgpmHMebe4Wkz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Non-English software
I also do not think that packages should be descriminated because they are in another language than english. Being a swede myself, I'm of course interested in packages available in swedish. However, I currently dont see myself learning japanese or another language than those I already know, and is therefore not interested in such packages. A year ago, when I did not have broadband access at home, I created debian cd's at work. however, since I wanted to fill them with as much useful software (to me) as possible, I wanted to easily remove packages that I immediately knew I would never use. Typically packages with foreign languages (- english :). As I remember, I used rm *-jp*deb (and other languages, no offence to japanese :), but it was quite a tedious task to weed through. What I would like is to have some sort of flag or meta information to indicate what language/es a package contain, so I can write a script to easily weed out packages I know I will never use (and maybe include packages in a specific language). For me this issue is kind of resolved by having net access everywhere, but I guess others could benefit from such functionality. Have anyone else felt this way? Regards, Stefan Quoting Tomohiro KUBOTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20 May-01 07:50]: > Hi, > > At Sat, 19 May 2001 12:17:09 +0200 (CEST), > peter karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What's the thought about software which is only available in a > > non-English language? I am thinking about packaging a client for the > > LysKOM server, which is only available in Swedish (there's some support > > for gettext, but no-one has bother translating the program into any > > other languages yet). > > We, Debian JP Project http://www.debian.or.jp/ , have packaged > many Japanese-oriented softwares and uploaded them to Debian. > Then what occured? Some non-Japanese people asked us how to use > them and possible bugs and so on, which means that Japanese- > oriented softwares are sometimes useful for non-Japanese people. > Please go ahead. If someone non-Swedish finds the software in > Debian packages and feels it is very useful, he/she may start > a project to translate it into English or other languages. It > is exciting! > > However, the software will have to have a license document in English.
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 11:54:09AM -0400, Jason Lunz wrote: > >> This is weird, because the only thing left in the postinst is: > >> # Automatically added by dh_installinit > >> if [ -e "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd" ]; then > >> update-rc.d pure-ftpd defaults >/dev/null > >> /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start > >> fi > >> # End automatically added section > >> Does anyone know what could cause this? > > Debconf. Redirect the output of the init script to stderr, that is, add >&2. > > Is there a way to have debhelper do that? Or should I just not be using > debhelper for this and put correct code in the postinst myself? You could add it yourself and use dh_installinit -n, that's what I did for xinetd. Or try what Itai suggested. > And if so, is that a bug in debhelper? I would think it should be > debconf-aware, or at least have the option to be. Well, some feel debconf is at fault here, mercilessly taking possession of stdout :) -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> Is there a way to have debhelper do that? Or should I just not be using >> debhelper for this and put correct code in the postinst myself? > You could add it yourself and use dh_installinit -n, that's what I did for > xinetd. Or try what Itai suggested. Itai's suggestion works beautifully, and lets me continue using debhelper generate that code. I'm all for letting the machine write the code for me when it can. :) > Well, some feel debconf is at fault here, mercilessly taking > possession of stdout :) I knew it probably had something to do with that, I just didn't expect that debconf and debhelper would conflict like that. I really just needed more experience with debconf. Jason
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 03:45:00PM -0400, Jason Lunz wrote: > > Well, some feel debconf is at fault here, mercilessly taking > > possession of stdout :) > > I knew it probably had something to do with that, I just didn't expect > that debconf and debhelper would conflict like that. Well, it's not strictly related to debhelper: any sort of program that outputs something in the postinst is likely to cause the same thing. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: Non-English software
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 08:37:12PM +0200, Stefan Alfredsson wrote: > What I would like is to have some sort of flag or meta information to > indicate what language/es a package contain, so I can write a script > to easily weed out packages I know I will never use (and maybe include > packages in a specific language). > > For me this issue is kind of resolved by having net access everywhere, > but I guess others could benefit from such functionality. Ok, I've got what you need. Well, I've been promoting some idea of mine and this is a perfect example, so here we go: I want to split up the current package trees in multiple directories. By adding or removing stuff to /etc/apt/sources.list you can control which parts of the package archive is visible to you. Example: We take all the packages that deal with japanese and put them in a seperate directory tree. If you want to make those packages visible to apt/dselect/etc... you'll add a line like the following to /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://http.us.debian.org/JP stable main contrib non-free ^^ If you don't want to have those packages around to slow dselect down remove it. You will also save yourself the bandwith necessary for downloading package information about those packages. Another possibility would be to use a different server. Japanese packages will mostly be used in Japan, so why host them in the USA: deb http://ftp.debian.JP/ stable main contrib ^^ Changing /etc/apt/sources.list manually is easy, but an automated way of handling this would be easier. Also there is the problem of knowing what different sections are available. One way to handle this would be through task-packages. Currently task-packages just depend on a number of other packages. However task-packages could also change /etc/apt/sources.list or install a file into an /etc/apt/sources.d/ like structure. So task-jp would install a /etc/apt/sources.d/jp.list . jp.list contains deb http://ftp.debian.jp/ stable main contrib and from then on the system will suddenly know about japanese packages. -- Casper Gielen [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- People just generally like to disagree. Bill Joy
Newbie packaging questions
Hi all, I'm trying to put together my own package for gnu-smalltalk, and I'm getting there, but I have some general questions. The current package is split into a main package and a docs package. It's based on gst 1.8.1 and I'm working with 1.95.4. There are some major changes in the package wrt automake or autoconf (or something, I'm actually not to familiar with the process, which is the problem). Basically, when I build my package it makes the correct packages, but the docs are included in both packages. Looking at the diffs for the old package seems to be getting me nowhere, because the build method looks totally different to me. I guess I just need help locating what parts in the Makefile.in (I guess that's what controls this) are involved. I'm sure that's totally vague, but if someone could point me in the right direction or let me know what info is required to help out that would be great. Should I just read up on automake/autoconf, or is there some simple way to do this? So that's one particular problem I'm having, but I was also wondering about the general concepts... When you have a single source bundle with a set of makefiles that build and install everything, what's the correct way to split things up? It looks like the current maintainer just commented out the docs installs and moved them into debian/rules, but what if the split was more complicated? I've gathered that debhelper throws the docs into the -doc package because it's marked arch-indep, but what if you had multiple architecture-dependant packages? How does debian/rules know what goes in which package? It's all magic to me at the moment... I haven't seen any docs that cover this stuff yet - if anyone can point them out... Anyhow, I have some other major problems, but I should probably not flood the list with my troubles just yet. Any help is appreciated, thanks. (Gonna go RTFM as well...) -- Brett
Re: Should libfile-temp-perl be removed ?
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 04:26:37PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > I'm currently the Maintainer of libfile-temp-perl which as of perl 5.6.1 is > > > included in the main Perl distribution. As the package is now redundant > > > should I file a bug against ftp.debian.org asking for it's removal. > > > > Or replace it by a dummy package which says "you can remove me now". > > A nasty hack that should not be necessary in this case. Thanks for the advice, [ I'm CC'ing debian-perl in-case the Perl Maintainer's have any views, I guess any other discussion should happen there ] OK, I'll file a bug against ftp.debian.org acessing for libfile-temp-perl's removal after perl-modules 5.6.1-3 has reached testing. -- Jon "Along with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, there is freedom to share generally useful information with other people. This should be an inalienable right." Richard M. Stallman, creator of the GNU Public License. PGP signature
Multiple sections in the control file.
Hi,
I'm maintaining mosix. The control file has sections for 3 packages,
the binaries, devel files and kernel patch.
Now, the devel files should have Section: devel and the rest should have
Section: net
How do I specify this in the control file ?
Also, I changed the priority of my packages to extra.
The funny thing is that the changes are not reflected in the first package
listed in the control file, though they are reflected in the next 2
entries.
I am attaching my control file hereby.
Thanks,
viral
--
And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too,
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.
Source: mosix
Section: net
Priority: extra
Maintainer: Viral Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 3.0.0)
Standards-Version: 3.5.2
Package: mosix
Architecture: i386
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}
Suggests: kernel-patch-mosix (= 1.0.2)
Description: Cluster computing tool with fault tolerance and process migration
MOSIX is a software package that enhance the Linux kernel with cluster
computing capabilities. The enhanced kernel allows any size cluster of
X86/Pentium/AMD based workstations and servers to work cooperatively
as if part of a single system.
.
This package contains the utilities to use a mosix multicomputer.
Package: mosix-dev
Architecture: i386
Depends: libc6-dev
Suggests: mosix (= 1.0.2)
Description: Header files for mosix
MOSIX is a software package that enhance the Linux kernel with cluster
computing capabilities. The enhanced kernel allows any size cluster of
X86/Pentium/AMD based workstations and servers to work cooperatively
as if part of a single system.
.
This package contains the header files and static libraries.
Package: kernel-patch-mosix
Architecture: i386
Depends: patch
Recommends: kernel-package (>> 7.01)
Description: Kernel patch for mosix
MOSIX is a software package that enhance the Linux kernel with cluster
computing capabilities. The enhanced kernel allows any size cluster of
X86/Pentium/AMD based workstations and servers to work cooperatively
as if part of a single system.
.
This package contains the mosix kernel patch for the 2.4.4 kernel.
Re: Multiple sections in the control file.
Thus spoke Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 2001-05-31 15:01:25: > > Now, the devel files should have Section: devel and the rest should have > Section: net > > How do I specify this in the control file ? > Also, I changed the priority of my packages to extra. > Add a Section: to each package. Like this: Package: foobar Section: games Package: foobar-dev Section: devel Cheers, -- Gergely Nagy \ mhp/|8] PGP signature
ITAP: SGI Performance Co-Pilot 2.2.0 now available
The license (which is in the download directory of the FTP server and presumably in the source package as well) is GPL 2.1. This package is a very powerful and exciting way of measuring performance of a network of machines. If used correctly it can allow you to visualise the way that load on one machine correlates with load on another. For example you could view web hits, disk access, and CPU load of all machines and notice that a high rate of web hits means lots of disk access on the web servers and CPU usage on the database server! However I believe that this package requires more time than I have available and that I can't do it on my own without neglecting my work on other packages. So I am announcing my intention to assist in packaging PCP. I will test it, assist in debugging it, and upload the result if the packager is not yet a Debian developer. I think that this would be a good opportunity for a new developer to learn about packaging. Recently some people have expressed interest in joining the Debian project but not had any definate plans for what to package, this might be something for them to investigate. -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: [linuxperf] [ANNOUNCE] SGI Performance Co-Pilot 2.2.0 now available Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:37:27 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] SGI is pleased to announce the new version of Performance Co-Pilot (PCP) open source (version 2.2.0-18) is now available for download from http://oss.sgi.com/projects/pcp/download PCP is an extensible system monitoring package with a client/server architecture. It provides a distributed unifying abstraction for all interesting performance statistics in /proc and assorted applications (e.g. Apache). The PCP library APIs are robust and well documented, supporting rapid deployment of new and diverse sources of performance data and the development of sophisticated performance monitoring tools. There are binary RPMs for ia32 and ia64, the source RPM and tar.gz files. The source should also build and work for Linux-ppc, Linux-alpha and most other Linux platforms. The PCP homepage is at http://oss.sgi.com/projects/pcp and you can join the PCP mailing list via http://oss.sgi.com/projects/pcp/mail.html This release (2.2.0-18) adds five new PCP agents and associated runtime libraries, many new metrics, numerous important build and bug fixes (particularly for IA64) and a large number of small changes as we merged and reconciled the IRIX and open source trees. SGI would like to thank those who contributed to this release, especially Michal Kara, Laurent Demailly, Alan Baily, Alexander L. Belikoff, the SGI PCP engineering team, and others. A list of changes since the last open source release (which was version 2.1.10, released 20-Oct-2000) is in /usr/doc/pcp-2.2.0/CHANGELOG after installation, or at http://oss.sgi.com/projects/pcp/latest.html Thanks and enjoy! -- Mark Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SGI Engineering - Linuxperf:Working list for the Linux Performance tuning site Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linuxperf/ Web site: http://linuxperf.nl.linux.org/ --- -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple sections in the control file.
* Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010531 11:38]: > > Now, the devel files should have Section: devel and the rest should have > > Section: net > > Add a Section: to each package. > > Like this: Also, see pop3lite if you want an example. ;-) -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple sections in the control file.
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 11:38:49AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Thus spoke Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 2001-05-31 15:01:25: > > > > Now, the devel files should have Section: devel and the rest should have > > Section: net > > > > How do I specify this in the control file ? > > Also, I changed the priority of my packages to extra. > > > Package: foobar > Section: games > > Package: foobar-dev > Section: devel I tried that, but it doesn't seem to work. It seems to be ignored, because after installing them, and using apt-cache show, I don't get the correct result. Moreover, it ignores the Section for the first package. viral -- You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dh_makeshlibs
Hi, dh_makeshlibs puts ldconfig in postinst and postrm. However, lintian complains about ldconfig being run from postrm, and refers to ch. 9 of the policy. What am I missing here, or is it only applicable to a specific case ? Thanks, viral -- Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time. Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines. PGP signature
Re: Multiple sections in the control file.
Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I tried that, but it doesn't seem to work. > It seems to be ignored, because after installing them, and using > apt-cache show, I don't get the correct result. "apt-cache show" sometimes displays multiple records. Are you sure you're not looking at the wrong one? In any case, "dpkg -I foo.deb" is probably a better guide. -- Robbe signature.ng
pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > When I installed pure-ftpd_0.98.4-1_i386.deb , at the end of the > install pure-ftpd said "Starting ftp server: pure-ftpd" and nothing > else happened, i.e. I do not have the prompt, "enter" do not give me > the prompt.If I do a ps I cans see that perl and debconf are still > runing. I've killed the processes but my pure-ftp server seems to > work. I stopped and started pure-ftpd and there is no problem, I don't > know if it is a bug but it's really minor. grr. I was hoping that was just happening to me. At that point everything is fine, so you don't need to worry. The hang is at the end of the postinst, when some debhelper-generated shell calls "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start". The init.d script starts pure-ftpd and exits successfully, but the postinst goes zombie after that: [orr](0) % ps axfw PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND 29349 pts/4S 0:01 \_ dpkg -i /var/debian/standard/pure-ftpd_0.98.4-4_i386.deb 29366 pts/4S 0:00 \_ /usr/bin/perl -w /usr/share/debconf/frontend /var/lib/dpkg/info/pure-ftpd.postinst config 29368 pts/4Z 0:00 \_ [pure-ftpd.posti ] This is weird, because the only thing left in the postinst is: [orr](0) % tail /var/lib/dpkg/info/pure-ftpd.postinst # End automatically added section # Automatically added by dh_installinit if [ -e "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd" ]; then update-rc.d pure-ftpd defaults >/dev/null /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start fi # End automatically added section exit 0 Does anyone know what could cause this? Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 10:36:34AM -0400, Jason Lunz wrote: > > When I installed pure-ftpd_0.98.4-1_i386.deb , at the end of the > > install pure-ftpd said "Starting ftp server: pure-ftpd" and nothing > > else happened, i.e. I do not have the prompt, "enter" do not give me > > the prompt.If I do a ps I cans see that perl and debconf are still > > runing. I've killed the processes but my pure-ftp server seems to > > work. I stopped and started pure-ftpd and there is no problem, I don't > > know if it is a bug but it's really minor. > > grr. I was hoping that was just happening to me. > > At that point everything is fine, so you don't need to worry. The hang > is at the end of the postinst, when some debhelper-generated shell calls > "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start". The init.d script starts pure-ftpd and > exits successfully, but the postinst goes zombie after that: > > [orr](0) % ps axfw > PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND > 29349 pts/4S 0:01 \_ dpkg -i >/var/debian/standard/pure-ftpd_0.98.4-4_i386.deb > 29366 pts/4S 0:00 \_ /usr/bin/perl -w >/usr/share/debconf/frontend /var/lib/dpkg/info/pure-ftpd.postinst config > 29368 pts/4Z 0:00 \_ [pure-ftpd.posti ] > > This is weird, because the only thing left in the postinst is: > > [orr](0) % tail /var/lib/dpkg/info/pure-ftpd.postinst > # End automatically added section > # Automatically added by dh_installinit > if [ -e "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd" ]; then > update-rc.d pure-ftpd defaults >/dev/null > /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start > fi > # End automatically added section > > > exit 0 > > Does anyone know what could cause this? Debconf. Redirect the output of the init script to stderr, that is, add >&2. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dh_makeshlibs
Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >dh_makeshlibs puts ldconfig in postinst and postrm. >However, lintian complains about ldconfig being run from postrm, and refers >to ch. 9 of the policy. > >What am I missing here, or is it only applicable to a specific case ? You're missing bugs #82479, #92236, #93655, and #95283. ;) As far as I know, debhelper's code is fine - no doubt Shaleh would appreciate it if somebody came up with a good patch for lintian. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> This is weird, because the only thing left in the postinst is: >> [orr](0) % tail /var/lib/dpkg/info/pure-ftpd.postinst >> # End automatically added section >> # Automatically added by dh_installinit >> if [ -e "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd" ]; then >> update-rc.d pure-ftpd defaults >/dev/null >> /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start >> fi >> # End automatically added section >> Does anyone know what could cause this? > Debconf. Redirect the output of the init script to stderr, that is, add >&2. Is there a way to have debhelper do that? Or should I just not be using debhelper for this and put correct code in the postinst myself? And if so, is that a bug in debhelper? I would think it should be debconf-aware, or at least have the option to be. Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need help on Unlicensed packages (Themes)
Colin Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, 28 May 2001 21:57:30 +1000 >Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >|On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 01:31:14PM +0100, Colin Fowler wrote: >|> No Readme - no License - no Copyright. I just took them all, put them >|> together >|> Copyright: >|> Each theme remains the copyright of its respective authors. >| >|Hi Colin, >|I don't have specific reference here, but AFAIK you need specific copyright >|and licensing from the upstream authors. paranoia was pulled from bsdgames >|because of an ambiguous license/copyright (it was more or less taken from a >|magazine article). So, I suggest contacting the upstream authors and asking >|for a license and copyright. > >Ackk I suspected as much - What sort of License do you put a theme under tho? >Its just pictures - Just so I can suggest to these guys if they are >confused over which to pick - If they mail be back saying - "Dude no >License - just use the damn things!" I suppose I can stick in "Public >domain" :) In order to say that it's public domain, you'll need to get an explicit disclaimer of copyright from the authors. (That is, "no copyright" means that it defaults to us not being able to use it at all - public domain takes an explicit statement of renunciation of copyright.) Something like the X11 licence (http://www.x.org/terms.htm) might be a reasonably simple one to recommend. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Autoconf test for Debian?
Hello mentors. I've been thinking about an autoconf test I have for checking that my package is being created on a Debian system. The reason is that I have a very small set of diffs that I want applied to the package only for Debian, and hope at some stage to feed these diffs upstream (things like file paths, etc). My test I have now is: > AC_MSG_CHECKING(for Debian) > if test -f /etc/debian_version ; then > AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) > INSTALL="/usr/bin/install" > AC_SUBST(INSTALL) > DEBIAN="yes" > AC_SUBST(DEBIAN) > else > AC_MSG_RESULT(no) ...and all other changes in scripts are based on "#ifdef DEBIAN". Is using /etc/debian_version the right thing to do, or is there a better/more accurate way to determine this? Existence of /usr/bin/dpkg? Existence of /var/lib/dpkg? Thanks, James -- James Bromberger www.rcpt.to/~james * * C u in Bordeaux - 1st Debian Conference, July 2001 * * Remainder moved to http://www.rcpt.to/~james/james/sig.html PGP signature
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
Je Thu, 31 May 2001 11:54:09 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Lunz) scribis: > >> # Automatically added by dh_installinit > >> if [ -e "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd" ]; then > >> update-rc.d pure-ftpd defaults >/dev/null > >> /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start > >> fi > >> # End automatically added section > > Debconf. Redirect the output of the init script to stderr, that is, add >&2. > > Is there a way to have debhelper do that? I put a db_stop before #DEBHELPER# in my scripts. Maybe that'll solve the problem for you? -itai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Autoconf test for Debian?
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 12:18:30AM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> I've been thinking about an autoconf test I have for checking that my package
> is being created on a Debian system. The reason is that I have a very small
> set of diffs that I want applied to the package only for Debian, and hope
> at some stage to feed these diffs upstream (things like file paths, etc).
I'm really confused about what the purpose of this is.
If you're packaging existing source for Debian, then just make the
changes, and they'll show up in the package's .diff file.
If you are the author of the code in question, or want to propose
changes to the upstream author, make things customizable in a generic
manner, then set them appropriately in debian/rules.
For example, if the issue is the location of a config file, then
change the code to use, e.g. ${sysconfdir}/bla.conf, then call
"./configure --sysconfdir=/etc" in debian/rules.
> ...and all other changes in scripts are based on "#ifdef DEBIAN".
Euh ... basing _any_ source variations on DEBIAN strikes me as a
really bad idea, in general. Use the power of autoconf to do things
in a generic manner, then specialize them for debian in debian/rules.
Regards,
-Steve
--
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Autoconf test for Debian?
I would avoid this sort of thing if I were you. If I were upstream I would not accept such patches, and even when I am upstream I like to keep debian specific stuff out of the upstream source. Autoconf only exists because unix standardization is poor, we don't want Linux distributions to balkanize in the same way unix has. Britton Kerin __ GNU GPL: "The Source will be with you... always." On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, James Bromberger wrote: > > Hello mentors. > > > I've been thinking about an autoconf test I have for checking that my package > is being created on a Debian system. The reason is that I have a very small > set of diffs that I want applied to the package only for Debian, and hope > at some stage to feed these diffs upstream (things like file paths, etc). > > My test I have now is: > > > AC_MSG_CHECKING(for Debian) > > if test -f /etc/debian_version ; then > > AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) > > INSTALL="/usr/bin/install" > > AC_SUBST(INSTALL) > > DEBIAN="yes" > > AC_SUBST(DEBIAN) > > else > > AC_MSG_RESULT(no) > > ...and all other changes in scripts are based on "#ifdef DEBIAN". Is using > /etc/debian_version the right thing to do, or is there a better/more accurate > way to determine this? Existence of /usr/bin/dpkg? Existence of /var/lib/dpkg? > > > Thanks, > James > -- > James Bromberger www.rcpt.to/~james > >* * C u in Bordeaux - 1st Debian Conference, July 2001 * * > Remainder moved to http://www.rcpt.to/~james/james/sig.html > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple sections in the control file.
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 03:52:36PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I tried that, but it doesn't seem to work. > > It seems to be ignored, because after installing them, and using > > apt-cache show, I don't get the correct result. > > "apt-cache show" sometimes displays multiple records. Are you sure > you're not looking at the wrong one? > > In any case, "dpkg -I foo.deb" is probably a better guide. I knew apt-cache was showing multiple records, but I was checking the right one. But you're right, dpkg -I is a much better guide, and I'd set the Sections entry per package just like Gergely had mentioned in a reply to my mail. Thanks to everyone for the help ! :) viral -- "Live for today, gone tomorrow, that's me, HaHaHaa!" PGP signature
Re: Non-English software
I also do not think that packages should be descriminated because they are in another language than english. Being a swede myself, I'm of course interested in packages available in swedish. However, I currently dont see myself learning japanese or another language than those I already know, and is therefore not interested in such packages. A year ago, when I did not have broadband access at home, I created debian cd's at work. however, since I wanted to fill them with as much useful software (to me) as possible, I wanted to easily remove packages that I immediately knew I would never use. Typically packages with foreign languages (- english :). As I remember, I used rm *-jp*deb (and other languages, no offence to japanese :), but it was quite a tedious task to weed through. What I would like is to have some sort of flag or meta information to indicate what language/es a package contain, so I can write a script to easily weed out packages I know I will never use (and maybe include packages in a specific language). For me this issue is kind of resolved by having net access everywhere, but I guess others could benefit from such functionality. Have anyone else felt this way? Regards, Stefan Quoting Tomohiro KUBOTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20 May-01 07:50]: > Hi, > > At Sat, 19 May 2001 12:17:09 +0200 (CEST), > peter karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What's the thought about software which is only available in a > > non-English language? I am thinking about packaging a client for the > > LysKOM server, which is only available in Swedish (there's some support > > for gettext, but no-one has bother translating the program into any > > other languages yet). > > We, Debian JP Project http://www.debian.or.jp/ , have packaged > many Japanese-oriented softwares and uploaded them to Debian. > Then what occured? Some non-Japanese people asked us how to use > them and possible bugs and so on, which means that Japanese- > oriented softwares are sometimes useful for non-Japanese people. > Please go ahead. If someone non-Swedish finds the software in > Debian packages and feels it is very useful, he/she may start > a project to translate it into English or other languages. It > is exciting! > > However, the software will have to have a license document in English. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 11:54:09AM -0400, Jason Lunz wrote: > >> This is weird, because the only thing left in the postinst is: > >> # Automatically added by dh_installinit > >> if [ -e "/etc/init.d/pure-ftpd" ]; then > >> update-rc.d pure-ftpd defaults >/dev/null > >> /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd start > >> fi > >> # End automatically added section > >> Does anyone know what could cause this? > > Debconf. Redirect the output of the init script to stderr, that is, add >&2. > > Is there a way to have debhelper do that? Or should I just not be using > debhelper for this and put correct code in the postinst myself? You could add it yourself and use dh_installinit -n, that's what I did for xinetd. Or try what Itai suggested. > And if so, is that a bug in debhelper? I would think it should be > debconf-aware, or at least have the option to be. Well, some feel debconf is at fault here, mercilessly taking possession of stdout :) -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> Is there a way to have debhelper do that? Or should I just not be using >> debhelper for this and put correct code in the postinst myself? > You could add it yourself and use dh_installinit -n, that's what I did for > xinetd. Or try what Itai suggested. Itai's suggestion works beautifully, and lets me continue using debhelper generate that code. I'm all for letting the machine write the code for me when it can. :) > Well, some feel debconf is at fault here, mercilessly taking > possession of stdout :) I knew it probably had something to do with that, I just didn't expect that debconf and debhelper would conflict like that. I really just needed more experience with debconf. Jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pure-ftpd: zombie postinst under debconf
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 03:45:00PM -0400, Jason Lunz wrote: > > Well, some feel debconf is at fault here, mercilessly taking > > possession of stdout :) > > I knew it probably had something to do with that, I just didn't expect > that debconf and debhelper would conflict like that. Well, it's not strictly related to debhelper: any sort of program that outputs something in the postinst is likely to cause the same thing. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-English software
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 08:37:12PM +0200, Stefan Alfredsson wrote: > What I would like is to have some sort of flag or meta information to > indicate what language/es a package contain, so I can write a script > to easily weed out packages I know I will never use (and maybe include > packages in a specific language). > > For me this issue is kind of resolved by having net access everywhere, > but I guess others could benefit from such functionality. Ok, I've got what you need. Well, I've been promoting some idea of mine and this is a perfect example, so here we go: I want to split up the current package trees in multiple directories. By adding or removing stuff to /etc/apt/sources.list you can control which parts of the package archive is visible to you. Example: We take all the packages that deal with japanese and put them in a seperate directory tree. If you want to make those packages visible to apt/dselect/etc... you'll add a line like the following to /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://http.us.debian.org/JP stable main contrib non-free ^^ If you don't want to have those packages around to slow dselect down remove it. You will also save yourself the bandwith necessary for downloading package information about those packages. Another possibility would be to use a different server. Japanese packages will mostly be used in Japan, so why host them in the USA: deb http://ftp.debian.JP/ stable main contrib ^^ Changing /etc/apt/sources.list manually is easy, but an automated way of handling this would be easier. Also there is the problem of knowing what different sections are available. One way to handle this would be through task-packages. Currently task-packages just depend on a number of other packages. However task-packages could also change /etc/apt/sources.list or install a file into an /etc/apt/sources.d/ like structure. So task-jp would install a /etc/apt/sources.d/jp.list . jp.list contains deb http://ftp.debian.jp/ stable main contrib and from then on the system will suddenly know about japanese packages. -- Casper Gielen [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- People just generally like to disagree. Bill Joy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newbie packaging questions
Hi all, I'm trying to put together my own package for gnu-smalltalk, and I'm getting there, but I have some general questions. The current package is split into a main package and a docs package. It's based on gst 1.8.1 and I'm working with 1.95.4. There are some major changes in the package wrt automake or autoconf (or something, I'm actually not to familiar with the process, which is the problem). Basically, when I build my package it makes the correct packages, but the docs are included in both packages. Looking at the diffs for the old package seems to be getting me nowhere, because the build method looks totally different to me. I guess I just need help locating what parts in the Makefile.in (I guess that's what controls this) are involved. I'm sure that's totally vague, but if someone could point me in the right direction or let me know what info is required to help out that would be great. Should I just read up on automake/autoconf, or is there some simple way to do this? So that's one particular problem I'm having, but I was also wondering about the general concepts... When you have a single source bundle with a set of makefiles that build and install everything, what's the correct way to split things up? It looks like the current maintainer just commented out the docs installs and moved them into debian/rules, but what if the split was more complicated? I've gathered that debhelper throws the docs into the -doc package because it's marked arch-indep, but what if you had multiple architecture-dependant packages? How does debian/rules know what goes in which package? It's all magic to me at the moment... I haven't seen any docs that cover this stuff yet - if anyone can point them out... Anyhow, I have some other major problems, but I should probably not flood the list with my troubles just yet. Any help is appreciated, thanks. (Gonna go RTFM as well...) -- Brett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
arch specific details and autobuilder.
Hi, Is there a page that tells about the arches that a package was successfully compiled for ? Problems etc ? Thanks, viral -- "Live for today, gone tomorrow, that's me, HaHaHaa!" PGP signature
Re: arch specific details and autobuilder.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 12:08:58PM +0530, Viral wrote: > Hi, > > Is there a page that tells about the arches that a package was successfully > compiled for ? Problems etc ? Maybe you want to look at http://buildd.debian.org. This is the closest I can think of... Cheers, B. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
