Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
On 20030326T175919-0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > Imho, debian-email should be publicly accessible and a bug should be > filed against lists.debian.org, but then I wonder if there's some > "private" email going to debian-email that shouldn't go to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because most people on debian-private are not interested in what debian-email gets. The -email list is am archiver for Debian-related (private) conversations. If you are a developer, you can see what kind of mails it gets from its private archives. I believe -private used to be used for this but then people decided they don't want to receive those mails. This was before my time, however. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin ystävien seura Toys - Ohjelmointi on myös taidetta http://www.cc.jyu.fi/yhd/toys/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Hi all, I am about to make a new package of netenv. First, I just incorporated the new upstream version, and the package I build passed the lintian test. However, the postinst script in netenv-0.82 asked questions. Therefore I debconf'ized the package. I did some more minor changes, but I am not aware of one affecting doc installation. What probably happened in the meantime was that I installed Adrian Bunk's backport of debhelper-4.1.37 on my woody system (which, of course, also upgraded /usr/bin/dh_installdocs. Now lintian complains: W: netenv: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link W: netenv: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link Formerly, the respective links where set by parts that dh_installdocs put into postinst and prerm. Did I do something wrong, or is this due to the debhelper upgrade? Is this link now obsolete? And if the latter is true, do I need an upgraded lintian as well? TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Hi Frank, Frank Küster wrote: > Now lintian complains: > W: netenv: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link > W: netenv: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link > Formerly, the respective links where set by parts that dh_installdocs > put into postinst and prerm. The usr/doc transition is considered complete in sid/sarge, so this function was removed from debhelper. > Did I do something wrong, or is this due to the debhelper upgrade? Is > this link now obsolete? And if the latter is true, do I need an upgraded > lintian as well? A 100% solution would be adding usr-doc-link by hand in your backport or enhance the debhelper backport to do this. Backporting lintian (which will now complain if you do set a usr/doc link (AFAIK)) isn't really doing anything to address the problem, OTOH if you're not building packages for official Debian (which you are not if you use a backported toolchain), you may just get by without the usr/doc link, so a backported lintian might suit your needs. In summary, it's a bit dependend on your goals: Do you want packages 100% following stable policy or do you want packages following the current policy. Except for official updates to stable I don't really see a lot of argument for the former. Cheers T. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 07:43:53PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > Now lintian complains: > > W: netenv: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link > W: netenv: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link > > Formerly, the respective links where set by parts that dh_installdocs > put into postinst and prerm. > > Did I do something wrong, or is this due to the debhelper upgrade? The latter. > Is this link now obsolete? Yes. See the last changelog entry for debian-policy 3.5.7.0. > And if the latter is true, do I need an upgraded lintian as well? If you like, but presumably if you're building on a semi-hacked-up woody system you aren't building packages for upload anyway, so you don't necessarily have to worry too much about complying with the letter of policy. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Hi Frank, > > Frank Küster wrote: >> Now lintian complains: >> W: netenv: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link >> W: netenv: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link >> Formerly, the respective links where set by parts that dh_installdocs >> put into postinst and prerm. > The usr/doc transition is considered complete in sid/sarge, so this function was > removed from debhelper. Ok, fine. >> Did I do something wrong, or is this due to the debhelper upgrade? Is >> this link now obsolete? And if the latter is true, do I need an upgraded >> lintian as well? > A 100% solution would be adding usr-doc-link by hand in your backport or enhance > the debhelper backport to do this. Or just forget about it - any user who uses woody with backports will have heard of /usr/share/doc, won't (s)he? > Backporting lintian (which will now complain > if you do set a usr/doc link (AFAIK)) isn't really doing anything to address the > problem, OTOH if you're not building packages for official Debian (which you are > not if you use a backported toolchain), you may just get by without the usr/doc > link, so a backported lintian might suit your needs. Well, lintian is a nice tool, but I don't think I should bother too much about complains that just come from version clashes as long as they don't reflect any real problems. > In summary, it's a bit dependend on your goals: Do you want packages 100% > following stable policy or do you want packages following the current policy. > Except for official updates to stable I don't really see a lot of argument for > the former. You're right, and so I'll forget about this obsolete link. But your comment (and Colins as well) bring me to an other point. Indeed right now this package is for private use and to offer it to other people as a backport. However, the Debian maintainer of the package has told me that he doesn't have time to work on it. So I'm thinking about uploading it, and I probably also have a sponsor. On the other hand, on my working machine I do not want to use unstable, and I don't have disk space available for an unstable chroot or the like (and no time to bother with unstable issues, too). At least not at the moment. So if I intend to prepare official packages, what should I do? Probably I first should install debian-policy & Co. from unstable and make sure that I always have the current version at hand. But what about software involved in packaging, like dpkg-dev, devscripts, debhelper? Would I have to upgrade/backport these, too? (Or, to put it the other way round, has anybody experience how much space a minimal unstable installation, just for developing purposes would need? And is there a tool like auto-apt, but for build-dependencies?) TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Can someone please take me off of this list I have tried many times. All requests are returned with a message saying it did not work. I am possibly here under [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] For the love of God. Someone, please help. On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 07:43:53PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > > Now lintian complains: > > > > W: netenv: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link > > W: netenv: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link > > > > Formerly, the respective links where set by parts that dh_installdocs > > put into postinst and prerm. > > > > Did I do something wrong, or is this due to the debhelper upgrade? > > The latter. > > > Is this link now obsolete? > > Yes. See the last changelog entry for debian-policy 3.5.7.0. > > > And if the latter is true, do I need an upgraded lintian as well? > > If you like, but presumably if you're building on a semi-hacked-up woody > system you aren't building packages for upload anyway, so you don't > necessarily have to worry too much about complying with the letter of > policy. > > Cheers, > > -- > Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- jc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Hi. Frank Küster wrote: > So if I intend to prepare official packages, what should I do? Probably > I first should install debian-policy & Co. from unstable and make sure > that I always have the current version at hand. But what about software > involved in packaging, like dpkg-dev, devscripts, debhelper? Would I > have to upgrade/backport these, too? I have serious doubts that this is a good idea. If you miss something you'll create bad packages. It also impedes thorough testing. Also, once you've backported and installed build-essential, you're basically running sid. > (Or, to put it the other way round, has anybody experience how much > space a minimal unstable installation, just for developing purposes > would need? And is there a tool like auto-apt, but for > build-dependencies?) You probably should use pbuilder. (I compile all the packages I build with pbuilder. I think a lot of breakage can be avoided that way, i.e. you always compile against a pure, recent sid/woody and will catch most build-dependency errors etc..) Also this is quite good for testing. (Testing woody versions when one runs sid, testing that the dependencies are ok, etc.) My pbuilder setup for woody and sid takes about 50MB each, plus apt-cache and results. An unpacked pbuilder chroot tarball takes about 150M. Cheers T. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Hi, On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:26:30 +, Frank K|ster wrote: > So if I intend to prepare official packages, what should I do? Probably > I first should install debian-policy & Co. from unstable and make sure > that I always have the current version at hand. But what about software > involved in packaging, like dpkg-dev, devscripts, debhelper? Would I > have to upgrade/backport these, too? > Use pbuilder. It constructs a minimal chrooted build system for the distribution of your choice. ;-) You might want to convince it not to tear down the chroot tree every time, though. It's somewhat-time-consuming if you don't need it to be _that_ strict. -- Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
so when i write to a third party about debian, i CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Keyserver problems? http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/keyserver.html Get my key here: http://madduck.net/me/gpg/publickey pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin, To quote from /usr/share/doc/debian/mailing-lists.txt (apt-get install doc-debian): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description : A generic "grab-bag" list for Debian related correspondence such as contacting upstream authors about licenses, bugs etc, or discussing the project with others where it might be useful to have the discussion archived somewhere. This list is archived internally on a Debian Project machine, only developers have access to the archive. Moderated : no Subscription: developers only So you would cc such emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ^^^ ^^ Hope this answers your question! Joe Nahmias, DD wannabe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+g2QlKl23+OYWEqURAlt1AJ99x8jIx/MOcGHk08Ldz5mzxt25qwCfTVuT Dn93fQ8vwM1QATOt2J8wois= =n6um -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
also sprach Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.03.27.2151 +0100]: > So you would cc such emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] looking at the mails in the archive, [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to suffice. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Keyserver problems? http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/keyserver.html Get my key here: http://madduck.net/me/gpg/publickey pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:51:52PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote: > To quote from /usr/share/doc/debian/mailing-lists.txt > (apt-get install doc-debian): > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Description : A generic "grab-bag" list for Debian related > correspondence such as contacting upstream authors > about licenses, bugs etc, or discussing the project > with others where it might be useful to have the > discussion archived somewhere. > > This list is archived internally on a Debian Project > machine, only developers have access to the archive. > Moderated : no > Subscription: developers only > > So you would cc such emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >^^^ ^^ [EMAIL PROTECTED] is an alias for that. Those with accounts can see /etc/aliases on master. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.03.27.2151 +0100]: > > So you would cc such emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > looking at the mails in the archive, [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to > suffice. If you say so. I'm not a DD yet, so all I can rely on is the documentation... ;-) Joe Nahmias, DD wannabe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:51:52PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote: > > So you would cc such emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >^^^ ^^ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is an alias for that. Those with accounts can see > /etc/aliases on master. Well, now I know ...and knowing is half the battle(TM) (the other half is somehow getting through the NM process :-)) Joe Nahmias, DD wannabe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
debian-mentors:您好! We are QINGFENG GROUP CO. We manufacture & export:Urea Formaldehyde Molding Compound (Type: Injection & Compression; Granular & Powder; Comply to the standard of GB 13454-92, JIS K6911 and UL-94); Melamine Molding Powder; Glazing Powder (Over-Lay Resin); Phenolic Molding Compound (Bakelite Powder; Type: Injection & Compression). Welcome you visit our website http://www.qingfenggroup.com to know more about our products. Contact: Zhou Yong Tel: 86-510-8868289 2711504 Fax: 86-510-2711504 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Urea Formaldehyde Molding Compound(granular,injection & compression)
Why can't these spammers just die! Or better yet go serve as human shields for Sadaam? Quoting QG group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: moon-lander: An SDL game based on the classic moon lander
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello again mentors!
It's been over two weeks since my last RFS, so I figured I'd try
again...
I have adopted the moon-lander package from an MIA DD, and packaged the
new upstream version. Latest changelog entries are:
moon-lander (1:1.0-2) unstable; urgency=low
* XPM files are text -- No need to uu{en,de}code. Thanks Roger Ward!
- debian/control: Build-deps -= sharutils.
- debian/rules: remove references to uudecode.
-- Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:21:10 -0500
moon-lander (1:1.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream version.
* debian/control:
- New maintainer, closes: #182984.
- Standards-Version ==> 3.5.8.0.
- Build-deps: added sharutils for uudecode.
* debian/rules: added CFLAGS handling for std-ver compliance.
* New files:
- debian/compat: set to 4.
- debian/moon-lander.xpm.uue: icon for menu.
- Makefile.Debian: rewrite of upstream's borked makefile for Debian.
-- Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:18:18 -0500
Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 4.0.0), libsdl1.2-dev (>= 1.2.2-3.1),
libsdl-mixer1.2-dev, libsdl-image1.2-dev
Description: An SDL game based on the classic moon lander
Moonlander is a fun and enjoyable modern graphical version (with sound)
of the classic moonlander game. The objective is to land your rocketship
safely using a limited amount of fuel while fighting gravity.
Package (source and i386 binary for sarge) is available via apt using:
deb http://www.cooper.edu/~nahmia/debian /
deb-src http://www.cooper.edu/~nahmia/debian /
Thanks in advance!
Joe Nahmias, DD wannabe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+go+DKl23+OYWEqURAlQNAJ0cPOpvLLDXtHTKSXq6hoMegLm1NACfbI7R
o3owQF4OJxzbQITO5o8Fb+w=
=K54I
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
On 20030326T175919-0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > Imho, debian-email should be publicly accessible and a bug should be > filed against lists.debian.org, but then I wonder if there's some > "private" email going to debian-email that shouldn't go to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because most people on debian-private are not interested in what debian-email gets. The -email list is am archiver for Debian-related (private) conversations. If you are a developer, you can see what kind of mails it gets from its private archives. I believe -private used to be used for this but then people decided they don't want to receive those mails. This was before my time, however. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin ystävien seura Toys - Ohjelmointi on myös taidetta http://www.cc.jyu.fi/yhd/toys/
debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Hi all, I am about to make a new package of netenv. First, I just incorporated the new upstream version, and the package I build passed the lintian test. However, the postinst script in netenv-0.82 asked questions. Therefore I debconf'ized the package. I did some more minor changes, but I am not aware of one affecting doc installation. What probably happened in the meantime was that I installed Adrian Bunk's backport of debhelper-4.1.37 on my woody system (which, of course, also upgraded /usr/bin/dh_installdocs. Now lintian complains: W: netenv: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link W: netenv: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link Formerly, the respective links where set by parts that dh_installdocs put into postinst and prerm. Did I do something wrong, or is this due to the debhelper upgrade? Is this link now obsolete? And if the latter is true, do I need an upgraded lintian as well? TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Hi Frank, Frank Küster wrote: > Now lintian complains: > W: netenv: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link > W: netenv: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link > Formerly, the respective links where set by parts that dh_installdocs > put into postinst and prerm. The usr/doc transition is considered complete in sid/sarge, so this function was removed from debhelper. > Did I do something wrong, or is this due to the debhelper upgrade? Is > this link now obsolete? And if the latter is true, do I need an upgraded > lintian as well? A 100% solution would be adding usr-doc-link by hand in your backport or enhance the debhelper backport to do this. Backporting lintian (which will now complain if you do set a usr/doc link (AFAIK)) isn't really doing anything to address the problem, OTOH if you're not building packages for official Debian (which you are not if you use a backported toolchain), you may just get by without the usr/doc link, so a backported lintian might suit your needs. In summary, it's a bit dependend on your goals: Do you want packages 100% following stable policy or do you want packages following the current policy. Except for official updates to stable I don't really see a lot of argument for the former. Cheers T. pgpDuqD3DADdf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 07:43:53PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > Now lintian complains: > > W: netenv: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link > W: netenv: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link > > Formerly, the respective links where set by parts that dh_installdocs > put into postinst and prerm. > > Did I do something wrong, or is this due to the debhelper upgrade? The latter. > Is this link now obsolete? Yes. See the last changelog entry for debian-policy 3.5.7.0. > And if the latter is true, do I need an upgraded lintian as well? If you like, but presumably if you're building on a semi-hacked-up woody system you aren't building packages for upload anyway, so you don't necessarily have to worry too much about complying with the letter of policy. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Hi Frank, > > Frank Küster wrote: >> Now lintian complains: >> W: netenv: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link >> W: netenv: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link >> Formerly, the respective links where set by parts that dh_installdocs >> put into postinst and prerm. > The usr/doc transition is considered complete in sid/sarge, so this function > was > removed from debhelper. Ok, fine. >> Did I do something wrong, or is this due to the debhelper upgrade? Is >> this link now obsolete? And if the latter is true, do I need an upgraded >> lintian as well? > A 100% solution would be adding usr-doc-link by hand in your backport or > enhance > the debhelper backport to do this. Or just forget about it - any user who uses woody with backports will have heard of /usr/share/doc, won't (s)he? > Backporting lintian (which will now complain > if you do set a usr/doc link (AFAIK)) isn't really doing anything to address > the > problem, OTOH if you're not building packages for official Debian (which you > are > not if you use a backported toolchain), you may just get by without the > usr/doc > link, so a backported lintian might suit your needs. Well, lintian is a nice tool, but I don't think I should bother too much about complains that just come from version clashes as long as they don't reflect any real problems. > In summary, it's a bit dependend on your goals: Do you want packages 100% > following stable policy or do you want packages following the current policy. > Except for official updates to stable I don't really see a lot of argument for > the former. You're right, and so I'll forget about this obsolete link. But your comment (and Colins as well) bring me to an other point. Indeed right now this package is for private use and to offer it to other people as a backport. However, the Debian maintainer of the package has told me that he doesn't have time to work on it. So I'm thinking about uploading it, and I probably also have a sponsor. On the other hand, on my working machine I do not want to use unstable, and I don't have disk space available for an unstable chroot or the like (and no time to bother with unstable issues, too). At least not at the moment. So if I intend to prepare official packages, what should I do? Probably I first should install debian-policy & Co. from unstable and make sure that I always have the current version at hand. But what about software involved in packaging, like dpkg-dev, devscripts, debhelper? Would I have to upgrade/backport these, too? (Or, to put it the other way round, has anybody experience how much space a minimal unstable installation, just for developing purposes would need? And is there a tool like auto-apt, but for build-dependencies?) TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Can someone please take me off of this list I have tried many times. All requests are returned with a message saying it did not work. I am possibly here under [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] For the love of God. Someone, please help. On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 07:43:53PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > > Now lintian complains: > > > > W: netenv: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link > > W: netenv: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link > > > > Formerly, the respective links where set by parts that dh_installdocs > > put into postinst and prerm. > > > > Did I do something wrong, or is this due to the debhelper upgrade? > > The latter. > > > Is this link now obsolete? > > Yes. See the last changelog entry for debian-policy 3.5.7.0. > > > And if the latter is true, do I need an upgraded lintian as well? > > If you like, but presumably if you're building on a semi-hacked-up woody > system you aren't building packages for upload anyway, so you don't > necessarily have to worry too much about complying with the letter of > policy. > > Cheers, > > -- > Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- jc
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Hi. Frank Küster wrote: > So if I intend to prepare official packages, what should I do? Probably > I first should install debian-policy & Co. from unstable and make sure > that I always have the current version at hand. But what about software > involved in packaging, like dpkg-dev, devscripts, debhelper? Would I > have to upgrade/backport these, too? I have serious doubts that this is a good idea. If you miss something you'll create bad packages. It also impedes thorough testing. Also, once you've backported and installed build-essential, you're basically running sid. > (Or, to put it the other way round, has anybody experience how much > space a minimal unstable installation, just for developing purposes > would need? And is there a tool like auto-apt, but for > build-dependencies?) You probably should use pbuilder. (I compile all the packages I build with pbuilder. I think a lot of breakage can be avoided that way, i.e. you always compile against a pure, recent sid/woody and will catch most build-dependency errors etc..) Also this is quite good for testing. (Testing woody versions when one runs sid, testing that the dependencies are ok, etc.) My pbuilder setup for woody and sid takes about 50MB each, plus apt-cache and results. An unpacked pbuilder chroot tarball takes about 150M. Cheers T. pgpfuZj0umB7Z.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debhelper upgrade makes lintian complain?
Hi, On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:26:30 +, Frank K|ster wrote: > So if I intend to prepare official packages, what should I do? Probably > I first should install debian-policy & Co. from unstable and make sure > that I always have the current version at hand. But what about software > involved in packaging, like dpkg-dev, devscripts, debhelper? Would I > have to upgrade/backport these, too? > Use pbuilder. It constructs a minimal chrooted build system for the distribution of your choice. ;-) You might want to convince it not to tear down the chroot tree every time, though. It's somewhat-time-consuming if you don't need it to be _that_ strict. -- Matthias
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
so when i write to a third party about debian, i CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Keyserver problems? http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/keyserver.html Get my key here: http://madduck.net/me/gpg/publickey pgp2mTxuRaSx5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin, To quote from /usr/share/doc/debian/mailing-lists.txt (apt-get install doc-debian): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description : A generic "grab-bag" list for Debian related correspondence such as contacting upstream authors about licenses, bugs etc, or discussing the project with others where it might be useful to have the discussion archived somewhere. This list is archived internally on a Debian Project machine, only developers have access to the archive. Moderated : no Subscription: developers only So you would cc such emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ^^^ ^^ Hope this answers your question! Joe Nahmias, DD wannabe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+g2QlKl23+OYWEqURAlt1AJ99x8jIx/MOcGHk08Ldz5mzxt25qwCfTVuT Dn93fQ8vwM1QATOt2J8wois= =n6um -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
also sprach Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.03.27.2151 +0100]: > So you would cc such emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] looking at the mails in the archive, [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to suffice. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Keyserver problems? http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/keyserver.html Get my key here: http://madduck.net/me/gpg/publickey pgpeKNYzAZWdB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:51:52PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote: > To quote from /usr/share/doc/debian/mailing-lists.txt > (apt-get install doc-debian): > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Description : A generic "grab-bag" list for Debian related > correspondence such as contacting upstream authors > about licenses, bugs etc, or discussing the project > with others where it might be useful to have the > discussion archived somewhere. > > This list is archived internally on a Debian Project > machine, only developers have access to the archive. > Moderated : no > Subscription: developers only > > So you would cc such emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >^^^ ^^ [EMAIL PROTECTED] is an alias for that. Those with accounts can see /etc/aliases on master. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Joe Nahmias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.03.27.2151 +0100]: > > So you would cc such emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > looking at the mails in the archive, [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems to > suffice. If you say so. I'm not a DD yet, so all I can rely on is the documentation... ;-) Joe Nahmias, DD wannabe
Re: debian-email@lists.debian.org
Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:51:52PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote: > > So you would cc such emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >^^^ ^^ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is an alias for that. Those with accounts can see > /etc/aliases on master. Well, now I know ...and knowing is half the battle(TM) (the other half is somehow getting through the NM process :-)) Joe Nahmias, DD wannabe
Re: Urea Formaldehyde Molding Compound(granular,injection & compression)
debian-mentors:您好! We are QINGFENG GROUP CO. We manufacture & export:Urea Formaldehyde Molding Compound (Type: Injection & Compression; Granular & Powder; Comply to the standard of GB 13454-92, JIS K6911 and UL-94); Melamine Molding Powder; Glazing Powder (Over-Lay Resin); Phenolic Molding Compound (Bakelite Powder; Type: Injection & Compression). Welcome you visit our website http://www.qingfenggroup.com to know more about our products. Contact: Zhou Yong Tel: 86-510-8868289 2711504 Fax: 86-510-2711504 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Urea Formaldehyde Molding Compound(granular,injection & compression)
Why can't these spammers just die! Or better yet go serve as human shields for Sadaam? Quoting QG group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
