Re: Question about packaging of mosixview.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 02:13:18PM -0800, Viral Shah wrote: > mosixview is a GUI admin tool for the mosix cluster. > > mosix is available only for the i386 architecture. mosixview, however > builds for all architectures, but being a mosix admin tool, is useful only > on i386 machines. Is it possible to administer the cluster using mosixview from a system that is not part of the cluster? Or, is it possible that mosix will run on non-i386 at some point in the future? If either of those is true, I think it should be built for all architectures. In the second case, it would help to shake out portability bugs that would come up down the road. If not, it is up to you whether you want to deal with the responsibility of making sure that it works everywhere. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "harry up for freeze" strangeness
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anyway way the problem was not reported to me as a bug by the > autobuilders? Well, the porters obviously have to care to even more portability bugs than a single maintainer, so not every bug will be reported immediately. > If I haven't check it these packages will not make part of testing nor > woody; if a maintainer have tens and tens of packages is really tedious > to check them all. http://buildd.debian.org/bymaint.php?maint=Stefano%20Zacchiroli%20%3Czack%40debian.org%3E%20> is your friend. (You may want to check http://buildd.debian.org/bymaint.php?maint=Stefano%20Zacchiroli%20%28Zack%29%20%3Czack%40debian.org%3E%20>, too. The bymaint script keys off the *exact* string in the Maintainer field). -- Robbe signature.ng Description: PGP signature
Duplicate relations in dpkg-shlibdeps output
Hello! I'm packaging a small tool using libnet, and found a lintian error I can't manage: enrico@marvin:~/dev$ lintian -vi guessnet_0.9-1_i386.changes N: Processing changes file guessnet_0.9-1_i386.changes ... N: Setting up lab in /tmp/lintian-lab.21790 ... N: Processing source package guessnet (version 0.9-1) ... N: Processing binary package guessnet (version 0.9-1) ... E: guessnet: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libpcap0 N: N: The package seems to declare a relation on another package more than N: once. This is not only sloppy but can break some tools N: N: Removing /tmp/lintian-lab.21790 ... If I check with dpkg-shlibdeps, I get: enrico@marvin:~/dev/guessnet-0.9$ dpkg-shlibdeps -O guessnet shlibs:Depends=libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libpcap0 (<< 0.7.0), libpcap0 (>= 0.6.1-1), libpopt0 (>= 1.6.2-1) What should I do to solve this error? dpkg-shlibs is giving an output that makes lintian complain, and I feel all of this is outside of my control, except maybe if the cause is in how upstram does the linkage. Given that upstream is me, I can also testify that upstream has no clue as well, and I'm asking for help also on his behalf. :) Bye, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Duplicate relations in dpkg-shlibdeps output
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 12:18:59PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: > E: guessnet: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libpcap0 > N: > N: The package seems to declare a relation on another package more than > N: once. This is not only sloppy but can break some tools > > enrico@marvin:~/dev/guessnet-0.9$ dpkg-shlibdeps -O guessnet > shlibs:Depends=libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libpcap0 (<< 0.7.0), libpcap0 (>= 0.6.1-1), >libpopt0 (>= 1.6.2-1) > > What should I do to solve this error? dpkg-shlibs is giving an output > that makes lintian complain, and I feel all of this is outside of my > control, except maybe if the cause is in how upstram does the linkage. Lintian must be on crack, there's nothing wrong with that relation. However, you should check if the package has a real duplicate relation on libpcap0, do dpkg -I guessnet_*.deb. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Duplicate relations in dpkg-shlibdeps output
On 10-Nov-2001 Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 12:18:59PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: >> E: guessnet: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libpcap0 >> N: >> N: The package seems to declare a relation on another package more than >> N: once. This is not only sloppy but can break some tools >> >> enrico@marvin:~/dev/guessnet-0.9$ dpkg-shlibdeps -O guessnet >> shlibs:Depends=libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libpcap0 (<< 0.7.0), libpcap0 (>= >> 0.6.1-1), libpopt0 (>= 1.6.2-1) >> >> What should I do to solve this error? dpkg-shlibs is giving an output >> that makes lintian complain, and I feel all of this is outside of my >> control, except maybe if the cause is in how upstram does the linkage. > > Lintian must be on crack, there's nothing wrong with that relation. > > However, you should check if the package has a real duplicate relation on > libpcap0, do dpkg -I guessnet_*.deb. > The lintian check seems to be missing the versioning information. Although why the << 0.7.0 is there is beyond me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Duplicate relations in dpkg-shlibdeps output
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 08:26:17AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > >> E: guessnet: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libpcap0 > >> N: > >> N: The package seems to declare a relation on another package more than > >> N: once. This is not only sloppy but can break some tools > >> > >> enrico@marvin:~/dev/guessnet-0.9$ dpkg-shlibdeps -O guessnet > >> shlibs:Depends=libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libpcap0 (<< 0.7.0), libpcap0 (>= > >> 0.6.1-1), libpopt0 (>= 1.6.2-1) > >> > >> What should I do to solve this error? dpkg-shlibs is giving an output > >> that makes lintian complain, and I feel all of this is outside of my > >> control, except maybe if the cause is in how upstram does the linkage. > > > > Lintian must be on crack, there's nothing wrong with that relation. > > > > However, you should check if the package has a real duplicate relation on > > libpcap0, do dpkg -I guessnet_*.deb. > > The lintian check seems to be missing the versioning information. Thought so... > Although why the << 0.7.0 is there is beyond me. It's probably a bad idea, but this is generated by libpcap0's shlibs file; Lintian should probably report it as a warning against that, not in this error against packages that are compiled against it. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sourceforge sucks
das mit dem release könnte noch dauern, suckforge ist gerade grauenhaft langsam bis überhaupt nicht mehr responding :-(( Gruß Yven -- Yven Leist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yven.beldesign.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sourceforge sucks
On Saturday 10 November 2001 18:13, Yven Johannes Leist wrote: > das mit dem release könnte noch dauern, suckforge ist gerade grauenhaft > langsam bis überhaupt nicht mehr responding :-(( > Gruß > Yven sorry for the inconvenience, this message was not supposed to go here, I must have hit the wrong button. Yven Leist -- Yven Leist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yven.beldesign.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question about packaging of mosixview.
Hi, mosixview is a GUI admin tool for the mosix cluster. mosix is available only for the i386 architecture. mosixview, however builds for all architectures, but being a mosix admin tool, is useful only on i386 machines. So, should I build mosixview only for i386, or let it build for all architectures, even though its probably not useful at all on the other architectures ? Are there any guidelines or policies regarding this ? viral -- http://www.mayin.org/~gandalf 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: "harry up for freeze" strangeness
Tnx for the answers, On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 07:06:41PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: > > ... > > How can I manage to retry the built? > > Again: on sparc the built was not tried at all, but last upload was a > > lot of time ago, how can I manage to try the built? > > You'll need to talk to the porters for those architectures > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Well, I will do it. Anyway way the problem was not reported to me as a bug by the autobuilders? If I haven't check it these packages will not make part of testing nor woody; if a maintainer have tens and tens of packages is really tedious to check them all. Well, I can write a small script that do it for me but I really prefer to trust the autobuilders ... Cheers. -- Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgpatGvfsJNu2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "harry up for freeze" strangeness
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anyway way the problem was not reported to me as a bug by the > autobuilders? Well, the porters obviously have to care to even more portability bugs than a single maintainer, so not every bug will be reported immediately. > If I haven't check it these packages will not make part of testing nor > woody; if a maintainer have tens and tens of packages is really tedious > to check them all. http://buildd.debian.org/bymaint.php?maint=Stefano%20Zacchiroli%20%3Czack%40debian.org%3E%20> is your friend. (You may want to check http://buildd.debian.org/bymaint.php?maint=Stefano%20Zacchiroli%20%28Zack%29%20%3Czack%40debian.org%3E%20>, too. The bymaint script keys off the *exact* string in the Maintainer field). -- Robbe signature.ng Description: PGP signature
Duplicate relations in dpkg-shlibdeps output
Hello! I'm packaging a small tool using libnet, and found a lintian error I can't manage: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev$ lintian -vi guessnet_0.9-1_i386.changes N: Processing changes file guessnet_0.9-1_i386.changes ... N: Setting up lab in /tmp/lintian-lab.21790 ... N: Processing source package guessnet (version 0.9-1) ... N: Processing binary package guessnet (version 0.9-1) ... E: guessnet: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libpcap0 N: N: The package seems to declare a relation on another package more than N: once. This is not only sloppy but can break some tools N: N: Removing /tmp/lintian-lab.21790 ... If I check with dpkg-shlibdeps, I get: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/guessnet-0.9$ dpkg-shlibdeps -O guessnet shlibs:Depends=libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libpcap0 (<< 0.7.0), libpcap0 (>= 0.6.1-1), libpopt0 (>= 1.6.2-1) What should I do to solve this error? dpkg-shlibs is giving an output that makes lintian complain, and I feel all of this is outside of my control, except maybe if the cause is in how upstram does the linkage. Given that upstream is me, I can also testify that upstream has no clue as well, and I'm asking for help also on his behalf. :) Bye, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Duplicate relations in dpkg-shlibdeps output
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 12:18:59PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: > E: guessnet: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libpcap0 > N: > N: The package seems to declare a relation on another package more than > N: once. This is not only sloppy but can break some tools > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/guessnet-0.9$ dpkg-shlibdeps -O guessnet > shlibs:Depends=libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libpcap0 (<< 0.7.0), libpcap0 (>= > 0.6.1-1), libpopt0 (>= 1.6.2-1) > > What should I do to solve this error? dpkg-shlibs is giving an output > that makes lintian complain, and I feel all of this is outside of my > control, except maybe if the cause is in how upstram does the linkage. Lintian must be on crack, there's nothing wrong with that relation. However, you should check if the package has a real duplicate relation on libpcap0, do dpkg -I guessnet_*.deb. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: Duplicate relations in dpkg-shlibdeps output
On 10-Nov-2001 Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 12:18:59PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: >> E: guessnet: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libpcap0 >> N: >> N: The package seems to declare a relation on another package more than >> N: once. This is not only sloppy but can break some tools >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/guessnet-0.9$ dpkg-shlibdeps -O guessnet >> shlibs:Depends=libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libpcap0 (<< 0.7.0), libpcap0 (>= >> 0.6.1-1), libpopt0 (>= 1.6.2-1) >> >> What should I do to solve this error? dpkg-shlibs is giving an output >> that makes lintian complain, and I feel all of this is outside of my >> control, except maybe if the cause is in how upstram does the linkage. > > Lintian must be on crack, there's nothing wrong with that relation. > > However, you should check if the package has a real duplicate relation on > libpcap0, do dpkg -I guessnet_*.deb. > The lintian check seems to be missing the versioning information. Although why the << 0.7.0 is there is beyond me.
Re: Duplicate relations in dpkg-shlibdeps output
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 08:26:17AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > >> E: guessnet: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libpcap0 > >> N: > >> N: The package seems to declare a relation on another package more than > >> N: once. This is not only sloppy but can break some tools > >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dev/guessnet-0.9$ dpkg-shlibdeps -O guessnet > >> shlibs:Depends=libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libpcap0 (<< 0.7.0), libpcap0 (>= > >> 0.6.1-1), libpopt0 (>= 1.6.2-1) > >> > >> What should I do to solve this error? dpkg-shlibs is giving an output > >> that makes lintian complain, and I feel all of this is outside of my > >> control, except maybe if the cause is in how upstram does the linkage. > > > > Lintian must be on crack, there's nothing wrong with that relation. > > > > However, you should check if the package has a real duplicate relation on > > libpcap0, do dpkg -I guessnet_*.deb. > > The lintian check seems to be missing the versioning information. Thought so... > Although why the << 0.7.0 is there is beyond me. It's probably a bad idea, but this is generated by libpcap0's shlibs file; Lintian should probably report it as a warning against that, not in this error against packages that are compiled against it. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
sourceforge sucks
das mit dem release könnte noch dauern, suckforge ist gerade grauenhaft langsam bis überhaupt nicht mehr responding :-(( Gruß Yven -- Yven Leist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yven.beldesign.de
Re: sourceforge sucks
On Saturday 10 November 2001 18:13, Yven Johannes Leist wrote: > das mit dem release könnte noch dauern, suckforge ist gerade grauenhaft > langsam bis überhaupt nicht mehr responding :-(( > Gruß > Yven sorry for the inconvenience, this message was not supposed to go here, I must have hit the wrong button. Yven Leist -- Yven Leist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yven.beldesign.de
Question about packaging of mosixview.
Hi, mosixview is a GUI admin tool for the mosix cluster. mosix is available only for the i386 architecture. mosixview, however builds for all architectures, but being a mosix admin tool, is useful only on i386 machines. So, should I build mosixview only for i386, or let it build for all architectures, even though its probably not useful at all on the other architectures ? Are there any guidelines or policies regarding this ? viral -- http://www.mayin.org/~gandalf I'll see you on the Dark Side of the Moon.
Re: Question about packaging of mosixview.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 02:13:18PM -0800, Viral Shah wrote: > mosixview is a GUI admin tool for the mosix cluster. > > mosix is available only for the i386 architecture. mosixview, however > builds for all architectures, but being a mosix admin tool, is useful only > on i386 machines. Is it possible to administer the cluster using mosixview from a system that is not part of the cluster? Or, is it possible that mosix will run on non-i386 at some point in the future? If either of those is true, I think it should be built for all architectures. In the second case, it would help to shake out portability bugs that would come up down the road. If not, it is up to you whether you want to deal with the responsibility of making sure that it works everywhere. -- - mdz
