Some advice for a non-binary package

[tripping]

I have a project that I think would be useful, it uses debian as a
base.  It doesn't contain any binary code, only python and shell
scripts.  It's an easy to use cluster installer/maintainer.  It
excpects a kernel to be there, and I don't mind including one, similar
to the system-imager package, which ships with a binary kernel.

What I'm not sure about is the whole Makefile/source package relevance
for a package like this.

Just tell me what to do and I'll do it that way, no problem, it's my
first package, and hopefully it'll be cool and useful to others.

subscribe

[aryix]

pub  1024D/DA025B59 2002-10-29 Aryix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Key fingerprint = 179D F460 E8E2 D6A6 1E3D  1D05 B152 24AE DA02 5B59
sub  1024g/DFD63464 2002-10-29

apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Fabio Tranchitella]

Hi, maybe I'm missing something (so please don't flog me :)) but I think
apt doesn't handle properly the Depends field.

Here there is an example, gallery depends on:
 >> Depends: apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl, ...

On my machine I haven't installed any of them, so if I run apt-get it
installs apache (which is the rule? It takes the first?):

  # apt-get install gallery
  Reading Package Lists... Done
  Building Dependency Tree... Done
  [ .. snip .. ]
  The following NEW packages will be installed:
apache gallery libmm13 libnetpbm10 libtiff3g netpbm php4
  [ .. snip .. ]
  Do you want to continue? [Y/n]


But if I try to install gallery and apache-ssl, apt tries to install
both apache and apache-ssl.

  # apt-get install gallery apache-ssl
  Reading Package Lists... Done
  Building Dependency Tree... Done
  [ .. snip .. ]
  The following NEW packages will be installed:
apache apache-ssl gallery libmm13 libnetpbm10 libtiff3g netpbm php4
  [ .. snip .. ]
  Do you want to continue? [Y/n]


If I really want to install gallery and apache-ssl and I really don't
want apache I have to run apt-get install as follows:

  # apt-get install gallery apache-ssl apache-
  [ .. snip .. ]
  The following NEW packages will be installed:
apache-ssl gallery libmm13 libnetpbm10 libtiff3g netpbm php4
  [ .. snip .. ]
  Do you want to continue? [Y/n]


I'm missing something or this is an apt bug?

Thanks in advance,

-- 
 
Fabio Tranchitella
 
 kobold.it, Turin, Italy  - Free is better!
 
---
 , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
GPG Key fingerprint: 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D  9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564



signature.asc
Description: Questa parte del messaggio è firmata

Re: Some advice for a non-binary package

[Frank Küster]

tripping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:

> I have a project that I think would be useful, it uses debian as a
> base.  It doesn't contain any binary code, only python and shell
> scripts.  It's an easy to use cluster installer/maintainer.  It
> excpects a kernel to be there, and I don't mind including one, similar
> to the system-imager package, which ships with a binary kernel.
>
> What I'm not sure about is the whole Makefile/source package relevance
> for a package like this.

This will make a binary package that is "Architecture: any". You still
need a source package and a binary one.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Andreas Metzler]

On 2004-07-24 Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, maybe I'm missing something (so please don't flog me :)) but I think
> apt doesn't handle properly the Depends field.

> Here there is an example, gallery depends on:
>  >> Depends: apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl, ...

> On my machine I haven't installed any of them, so if I run apt-get it
> installs apache (which is the rule? It takes the first?):

Correct. the first one.

[...]
> If I really want to install gallery and apache-ssl and I really don't
> want apache I have to run apt-get install as follows:

>   # apt-get install gallery apache-ssl apache-

"apt-get install apache-ssl gallery" would also work.

> I'm missing something or this is an apt bug?

http://bugs.debian.org/122304
 cu andreas
-- 
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Fabio Tranchitella]

You have replied in private, I hope you won't mind if I answer on the
list...

Il sab, 2004-07-24 alle 19:36, Nick Lewycky ha scritto:
> Is this any different from bug 122304?
> Nick

Yep, you are right, I think the bug is the same... 
But why nobody has yet taken care about it? There is a patch
which (maybe) fix the bug without any answer from the maintainers.

But if I change the order of the packages apt doesn't try to install
apache (and this is right, of course) but try to install apache-common
and apache-utils... !!!

# apt-get install apache2 gallery
[ .. snip .. ]
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  apache-common apache-utils apache2 apache2-common apache2-mpm-worker
[ .. snip .. ]

Thanks,
Fabio.

PS: I'm reporting this because I'm the maintainer of phpldapadmin, and a
bug report has been filed for this (#261248), and I don't know which is
the best way to handle this bug.

-- 
 
Fabio Tranchitella
 
 kobold.it, Turin, Italy  - Free is better!
 
---
 , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
GPG Key fingerprint: 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D  9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564



signature.asc
Description: Questa parte del messaggio è firmata

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Fabio Tranchitella]

Il sab, 2004-07-24 alle 20:03, Fabio Tranchitella ha scritto:
> But if I change the order of the packages apt doesn't try to install
> apache (and this is right, of course) but try to install apache-common
> and apache-utils... !!!
> 
> # apt-get install apache2 gallery
> [ .. snip .. ]
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   apache-common apache-utils apache2 apache2-common apache2-mpm-worker
> [ .. snip .. ]

Just wondering about apt...

A package depends on "apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl | apache2, php4
| php4-cgi | libapache2-mod-php4". I know that apt automatically install
the first package of a set of alternatives, so if I run:

# apt-get install thepackage

It will install apache and php4, and it's right. But if I run:

# apt-get install apache2 thepackage

It tries to install apache2 and php4. The last one is not designed for
apache2 and depends on apache-common and apache-utils... Result: I won't
have apache2 with php4 support but I'll have php4 support for apache1.3
which is not installed.

Is it possible to specify related alternative dependency? I'm thinking
about something like this:

Depends: [apache, php4] | [apache2, libapache2-mod-php4] | 

Yes, I know there are 1000 better syntax to handle it, but this is only 
an example.

Thanks,
Fabio.

-- 
 
Fabio Tranchitella
 
 kobold.it, Turin, Italy  - Free is better!
 
---
 , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
GPG Key fingerprint: 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D  9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564



signature.asc
Description: Questa parte del messaggio è firmata

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Adeodato Simó]

* Fabio Tranchitella [Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:08:23 +0200]:

> Is it possible to specify related alternative dependency? I'm thinking
> about something like this:

> Depends: [apache, php4] | [apache2, libapache2-mod-php4] | 

  there was a thread [1] about this in debian-devel last month.

  [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg00133.html

> A package depends on "apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl | apache2, php4
> | php4-cgi | libapache2-mod-php4". I know that apt automatically install
> the first package of a set of alternatives, so if I run:

  I think that package should not depend on "php4 | php4-cgi |
  libapache2-mod-php4", but on phpapi-20020918, which all of those three
  packages provide.

  I'd file a bug, or at least talk to the maintainer to know if there is
  a reason not to make that change.

  cheers,

-- 
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
Listening to: Michael Jackson - Give in to me
 
America may be unique in being a country which has leapt from barbarism
to decadence without touching civilization.
-- John O'Hara

RFS: Folding@home

[Nick Lewycky]

Package name : folding
Version  : 4.00
Upstream : http://folding.stanford.edu
URL  : http://wagon.dhs.org/folding/
Description  : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Client (install package)
WNPP bug : http://bugs.debian.org/261257

Long description:
"[EMAIL PROTECTED] performs research by simulating the folding processes
 of proteins, RNA and synthetic polymers. The results of the simulations
 are sent to Stanford University who release them to the biochemical
 community. Protien misfoldings are implicated in diseases such as
 Alzheimer's, cyctic fibrosis and others. By contributing, your
 computers' idle time will work towards an understanding of these
 diseases.

"[EMAIL PROTECTED] is only distributed in binary form from Stanford's
 official webserver. This package will download the client from Stanford
 and install it on your computer. It is only available for x86."

This is an install package, intended for contrib/misc alongside packages 
like setiathome which do the same thing for another project.


I spent the past 3 days cooking up a package and testing it. It appears 
to work perfectly, fingers crossed. I haven't tested it exhaustively 
yet, but upgrades, downgrades, installs, removals and purging all work.


I'm seeking feedback about my packaging job. Although I've made packages 
for internal use, this is my first package released to the public. 
Please let me know if I made any mistakes, or also if you did look at it 
and couldn't find any.


In the same vein, if you are an experienced DD and decide that the 
package is ready for the archive, I'd appreciate if you would sponsor it 
for me.


Again, the URL to download it from is http://wagon.dhs.org/folding/

Thanks,
Nick Lewycky

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 08:03:51PM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:

> But why nobody has yet taken care about it? There is a patch
> which (maybe) fix the bug without any answer from the maintainers.

If you are interested in seeing this (minor) bug fixed, helpful actions
include:

- Applying the patch and testing whether it fixes the problem in all cases
  that it should

- Testing further for the many possible regressions

- Sending your findings to the BTS

- Testing whether the change requires modifications to other apt frontends,
  and modifying them appropriately

I hope that this answers your question and makes it easier for you to
help fix this bug, which is apparently important to you.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:18:41PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Fabio Tranchitella [Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:08:23 +0200]:

> > Is it possible to specify related alternative dependency? I'm thinking
> > about something like this:

> > Depends: [apache, php4] | [apache2, libapache2-mod-php4] | 

>   there was a thread [1] about this in debian-devel last month.

>   [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg00133.html

> > A package depends on "apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl | apache2, php4
> > | php4-cgi | libapache2-mod-php4". I know that apt automatically install
> > the first package of a set of alternatives, so if I run:

>   I think that package should not depend on "php4 | php4-cgi |
>   libapache2-mod-php4", but on phpapi-20020918, which all of those three
>   packages provide.

*NO*.  The phpapi-* virtual packages are not intended for use by
applications written in PHP, they are there for packages which provide
PHP extensions.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Adeodato Simó]

* Steve Langasek [Sat, 24 Jul 2004 14:29:16 -0700]:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:18:41PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> >   there was a thread [1] about this in debian-devel last month.

> >   [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg00133.html

> > > A package depends on "apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl | apache2, php4
> > > | php4-cgi | libapache2-mod-php4". I know that apt automatically install
> > > the first package of a set of alternatives, so if I run:

> >   I think that package should not depend on "php4 | php4-cgi |
> >   libapache2-mod-php4", but on phpapi-20020918, which all of those three
> >   packages provide.

> *NO*.  The phpapi-* virtual packages are not intended for use by
> applications written in PHP, they are there for packages which provide
> PHP extensions.

  ah, wasn't aware of that. then, perhaps those packages should provide
  "mod-php4" to ease situations like the one described? (which is what
  was proposed in the linked thread, to provide "mod-python") [I was of
  course assuming that phpapi-* ~== (equiv.) mod-python.]

  BTW, the python thing hasn't been fixed either. bugreports haven't
  been filed. anyway, was a reasonable solution?

-- 
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
Listening to: María Jiménez - Los celos
 
The easy way is the wrong way, and the hard way is the stupid way. Pick one.

RFS for python-gd, RTA by its maintainer

[Iustin Pop]

Hello to all,

The python-gd package has been RFA'ed by its maintainer, Ben Pfaff. I
spoke with him about me taking over and he agreed, as long as I find a
sponsor (he doesn't have time).

Now, I changed the RFA bug (#223755) to ITA, I prepared a new version of the
package, solving the one (wishlist) bug, and I need a sponsor for the
upload - if the packages are ok.

The wishlist bug (#223580) was not quite trivial - the python-gd was
built only against python (current version) and the bug requested
splitting it into python2.1-gd, python2.2-gd and python2.3-gd. I did it,
run intro trouble since some files have migrated from python-gd to
python2.3-gd, solved it by making python2.3-gd Conflicts python-gd
(<<0.52-1) and Depends python-gd (>=0.52-1), where 0.52-1 is my version.

The resulting packages:
- lintian and linda clean;
- tested for upgrade from older version;
- tested for clean install;
- tested for basic functionality
- have one issue: can't install python 2.2 version without 2.3
  version (which brings python2.3 in), don't know/think this could
  be an issue (since until now only 2.3 version was available); I'm
  prepared to deal with this if it's an issue;

They are available (vers. 0.52-1) at http://www.k1024.org/iusty/apt/pool and:
  deb http://www.k1024.org/iusty/apt/ unstable main
  deb-src http://www.k1024.org/iusty/apt/ unstable main

Thank you,
Iustin Pop


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Wow, I Really Need This! cD3

[Celina Hansen]

User ID: 4 drunk
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:15:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="--87873530057614470287"


87873530057614470287
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Debian-laptop-request

Why pay more when you can enjoy the best and cheapest pills online? 
Nearly 80 types to choose which makes ours pharmacy the largest and the best 
available!

No Appointments.
No Waiting Rooms.
No Prior Prescription Required.

See why our customers re-order more than any competitor!

http://bestpills.mypills4us.com/?k=S17h49







This is one-time mai|ing. No rem0val are required.
G[20

87873530057614470287--

Re: Some advice for a non-binary package

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:37:58PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> tripping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> 
> > I have a project that I think would be useful, it uses debian as a
> > base.  It doesn't contain any binary code, only python and shell
> > scripts.  It's an easy to use cluster installer/maintainer.  It
> > excpects a kernel to be there, and I don't mind including one, similar
> > to the system-imager package, which ships with a binary kernel.
> >
> > What I'm not sure about is the whole Makefile/source package relevance
> > for a package like this.
> 
> This will make a binary package that is "Architecture: any". You still

No, Arch: all.

- Matt

Some advice for a non-binary package

[tripping]

I have a project that I think would be useful, it uses debian as a
base.  It doesn't contain any binary code, only python and shell
scripts.  It's an easy to use cluster installer/maintainer.  It
excpects a kernel to be there, and I don't mind including one, similar
to the system-imager package, which ships with a binary kernel.

What I'm not sure about is the whole Makefile/source package relevance
for a package like this.

Just tell me what to do and I'll do it that way, no problem, it's my
first package, and hopefully it'll be cool and useful to others.


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

subscribe

[aryix]

pub  1024D/DA025B59 2002-10-29 Aryix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Key fingerprint = 179D F460 E8E2 D6A6 1E3D  1D05 B152 24AE DA02 5B59
sub  1024g/DFD63464 2002-10-29
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Fabio Tranchitella]

Hi, maybe I'm missing something (so please don't flog me :)) but I think
apt doesn't handle properly the Depends field.

Here there is an example, gallery depends on:
 >> Depends: apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl, ...

On my machine I haven't installed any of them, so if I run apt-get it
installs apache (which is the rule? It takes the first?):

  # apt-get install gallery
  Reading Package Lists... Done
  Building Dependency Tree... Done
  [ .. snip .. ]
  The following NEW packages will be installed:
apache gallery libmm13 libnetpbm10 libtiff3g netpbm php4
  [ .. snip .. ]
  Do you want to continue? [Y/n]


But if I try to install gallery and apache-ssl, apt tries to install
both apache and apache-ssl.

  # apt-get install gallery apache-ssl
  Reading Package Lists... Done
  Building Dependency Tree... Done
  [ .. snip .. ]
  The following NEW packages will be installed:
apache apache-ssl gallery libmm13 libnetpbm10 libtiff3g netpbm php4
  [ .. snip .. ]
  Do you want to continue? [Y/n]


If I really want to install gallery and apache-ssl and I really don't
want apache I have to run apt-get install as follows:

  # apt-get install gallery apache-ssl apache-
  [ .. snip .. ]
  The following NEW packages will be installed:
apache-ssl gallery libmm13 libnetpbm10 libtiff3g netpbm php4
  [ .. snip .. ]
  Do you want to continue? [Y/n]


I'm missing something or this is an apt bug?

Thanks in advance,

-- 
 
Fabio Tranchitella
 
 kobold.it, Turin, Italy  - Free is better!
 
---
 , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
GPG Key fingerprint: 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D  9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564



signature.asc
Description: Questa parte del messaggio =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= firmata

Re: Some advice for a non-binary package

[Frank Küster]

tripping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:

> I have a project that I think would be useful, it uses debian as a
> base.  It doesn't contain any binary code, only python and shell
> scripts.  It's an easy to use cluster installer/maintainer.  It
> excpects a kernel to be there, and I don't mind including one, similar
> to the system-imager package, which ships with a binary kernel.
>
> What I'm not sure about is the whole Makefile/source package relevance
> for a package like this.

This will make a binary package that is "Architecture: any". You still
need a source package and a binary one.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Andreas Metzler]

On 2004-07-24 Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, maybe I'm missing something (so please don't flog me :)) but I think
> apt doesn't handle properly the Depends field.

> Here there is an example, gallery depends on:
>  >> Depends: apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl, ...

> On my machine I haven't installed any of them, so if I run apt-get it
> installs apache (which is the rule? It takes the first?):

Correct. the first one.

[...]
> If I really want to install gallery and apache-ssl and I really don't
> want apache I have to run apt-get install as follows:

>   # apt-get install gallery apache-ssl apache-

"apt-get install apache-ssl gallery" would also work.

> I'm missing something or this is an apt bug?

http://bugs.debian.org/122304
 cu andreas
-- 
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"


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

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Fabio Tranchitella]

You have replied in private, I hope you won't mind if I answer on the
list...

Il sab, 2004-07-24 alle 19:36, Nick Lewycky ha scritto:
> Is this any different from bug 122304?
> Nick

Yep, you are right, I think the bug is the same... 
But why nobody has yet taken care about it? There is a patch
which (maybe) fix the bug without any answer from the maintainers.

But if I change the order of the packages apt doesn't try to install
apache (and this is right, of course) but try to install apache-common
and apache-utils... !!!

# apt-get install apache2 gallery
[ .. snip .. ]
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  apache-common apache-utils apache2 apache2-common apache2-mpm-worker
[ .. snip .. ]

Thanks,
Fabio.

PS: I'm reporting this because I'm the maintainer of phpldapadmin, and a
bug report has been filed for this (#261248), and I don't know which is
the best way to handle this bug.

-- 
 
Fabio Tranchitella
 
 kobold.it, Turin, Italy  - Free is better!
 
---
 , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
GPG Key fingerprint: 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D  9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564



signature.asc
Description: Questa parte del messaggio =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= firmata

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Fabio Tranchitella]

Il sab, 2004-07-24 alle 20:03, Fabio Tranchitella ha scritto:
> But if I change the order of the packages apt doesn't try to install
> apache (and this is right, of course) but try to install apache-common
> and apache-utils... !!!
> 
> # apt-get install apache2 gallery
> [ .. snip .. ]
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   apache-common apache-utils apache2 apache2-common apache2-mpm-worker
> [ .. snip .. ]

Just wondering about apt...

A package depends on "apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl | apache2, php4
| php4-cgi | libapache2-mod-php4". I know that apt automatically install
the first package of a set of alternatives, so if I run:

# apt-get install thepackage

It will install apache and php4, and it's right. But if I run:

# apt-get install apache2 thepackage

It tries to install apache2 and php4. The last one is not designed for
apache2 and depends on apache-common and apache-utils... Result: I won't
have apache2 with php4 support but I'll have php4 support for apache1.3
which is not installed.

Is it possible to specify related alternative dependency? I'm thinking
about something like this:

Depends: [apache, php4] | [apache2, libapache2-mod-php4] | 

Yes, I know there are 1000 better syntax to handle it, but this is only 
an example.

Thanks,
Fabio.

-- 
 
Fabio Tranchitella
 
 kobold.it, Turin, Italy  - Free is better!
 
---
 , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
GPG Key fingerprint: 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D  9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564



signature.asc
Description: Questa parte del messaggio =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= firmata

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Adeodato Simó]

* Fabio Tranchitella [Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:08:23 +0200]:

> Is it possible to specify related alternative dependency? I'm thinking
> about something like this:

> Depends: [apache, php4] | [apache2, libapache2-mod-php4] | 

  there was a thread [1] about this in debian-devel last month.

  [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg00133.html

> A package depends on "apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl | apache2, php4
> | php4-cgi | libapache2-mod-php4". I know that apt automatically install
> the first package of a set of alternatives, so if I run:

  I think that package should not depend on "php4 | php4-cgi |
  libapache2-mod-php4", but on phpapi-20020918, which all of those three
  packages provide.

  I'd file a bug, or at least talk to the maintainer to know if there is
  a reason not to make that change.

  cheers,

-- 
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
Listening to: Michael Jackson - Give in to me
 
America may be unique in being a country which has leapt from barbarism
to decadence without touching civilization.
-- John O'Hara


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

RFS: Folding@home

[Nick Lewycky]

Package name : folding
Version  : 4.00
Upstream : http://folding.stanford.edu
URL  : http://wagon.dhs.org/folding/
Description  : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Client (install package)
WNPP bug : http://bugs.debian.org/261257
Long description:
"[EMAIL PROTECTED] performs research by simulating the folding processes
 of proteins, RNA and synthetic polymers. The results of the simulations
 are sent to Stanford University who release them to the biochemical
 community. Protien misfoldings are implicated in diseases such as
 Alzheimer's, cyctic fibrosis and others. By contributing, your
 computers' idle time will work towards an understanding of these
 diseases.
"[EMAIL PROTECTED] is only distributed in binary form from Stanford's
 official webserver. This package will download the client from Stanford
 and install it on your computer. It is only available for x86."
This is an install package, intended for contrib/misc alongside packages 
like setiathome which do the same thing for another project.

I spent the past 3 days cooking up a package and testing it. It appears 
to work perfectly, fingers crossed. I haven't tested it exhaustively 
yet, but upgrades, downgrades, installs, removals and purging all work.

I'm seeking feedback about my packaging job. Although I've made packages 
for internal use, this is my first package released to the public. 
Please let me know if I made any mistakes, or also if you did look at it 
and couldn't find any.

In the same vein, if you are an experienced DD and decide that the 
package is ready for the archive, I'd appreciate if you would sponsor it 
for me.

Again, the URL to download it from is http://wagon.dhs.org/folding/
Thanks,
Nick Lewycky
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 08:03:51PM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:

> But why nobody has yet taken care about it? There is a patch
> which (maybe) fix the bug without any answer from the maintainers.

If you are interested in seeing this (minor) bug fixed, helpful actions
include:

- Applying the patch and testing whether it fixes the problem in all cases
  that it should

- Testing further for the many possible regressions

- Sending your findings to the BTS

- Testing whether the change requires modifications to other apt frontends,
  and modifying them appropriately

I hope that this answers your question and makes it easier for you to
help fix this bug, which is apparently important to you.

-- 
 - mdz


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

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:18:41PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Fabio Tranchitella [Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:08:23 +0200]:

> > Is it possible to specify related alternative dependency? I'm thinking
> > about something like this:

> > Depends: [apache, php4] | [apache2, libapache2-mod-php4] | 

>   there was a thread [1] about this in debian-devel last month.

>   [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg00133.html

> > A package depends on "apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl | apache2, php4
> > | php4-cgi | libapache2-mod-php4". I know that apt automatically install
> > the first package of a set of alternatives, so if I run:

>   I think that package should not depend on "php4 | php4-cgi |
>   libapache2-mod-php4", but on phpapi-20020918, which all of those three
>   packages provide.

*NO*.  The phpapi-* virtual packages are not intended for use by
applications written in PHP, they are there for packages which provide
PHP extensions.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt doesn't handle properly the depends field or I'm missing something?

[Adeodato Simó]

* Steve Langasek [Sat, 24 Jul 2004 14:29:16 -0700]:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:18:41PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> >   there was a thread [1] about this in debian-devel last month.

> >   [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg00133.html

> > > A package depends on "apache | apache-ssl | apache-perl | apache2, php4
> > > | php4-cgi | libapache2-mod-php4". I know that apt automatically install
> > > the first package of a set of alternatives, so if I run:

> >   I think that package should not depend on "php4 | php4-cgi |
> >   libapache2-mod-php4", but on phpapi-20020918, which all of those three
> >   packages provide.

> *NO*.  The phpapi-* virtual packages are not intended for use by
> applications written in PHP, they are there for packages which provide
> PHP extensions.

  ah, wasn't aware of that. then, perhaps those packages should provide
  "mod-php4" to ease situations like the one described? (which is what
  was proposed in the linked thread, to provide "mod-python") [I was of
  course assuming that phpapi-* ~== (equiv.) mod-python.]

  BTW, the python thing hasn't been fixed either. bugreports haven't
  been filed. anyway, was a reasonable solution?

-- 
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
Listening to: María Jiménez - Los celos
 
The easy way is the wrong way, and the hard way is the stupid way. Pick one.


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

RFS for python-gd, RTA by its maintainer

[Iustin Pop]

Hello to all,

The python-gd package has been RFA'ed by its maintainer, Ben Pfaff. I
spoke with him about me taking over and he agreed, as long as I find a
sponsor (he doesn't have time).

Now, I changed the RFA bug (#223755) to ITA, I prepared a new version of the
package, solving the one (wishlist) bug, and I need a sponsor for the
upload - if the packages are ok.

The wishlist bug (#223580) was not quite trivial - the python-gd was
built only against python (current version) and the bug requested
splitting it into python2.1-gd, python2.2-gd and python2.3-gd. I did it,
run intro trouble since some files have migrated from python-gd to
python2.3-gd, solved it by making python2.3-gd Conflicts python-gd
(<<0.52-1) and Depends python-gd (>=0.52-1), where 0.52-1 is my version.

The resulting packages:
- lintian and linda clean;
- tested for upgrade from older version;
- tested for clean install;
- tested for basic functionality
- have one issue: can't install python 2.2 version without 2.3
  version (which brings python2.3 in), don't know/think this could
  be an issue (since until now only 2.3 version was available); I'm
  prepared to deal with this if it's an issue;

They are available (vers. 0.52-1) at http://www.k1024.org/iusty/apt/pool and:
  deb http://www.k1024.org/iusty/apt/ unstable main
  deb-src http://www.k1024.org/iusty/apt/ unstable main

Thank you,
Iustin Pop


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Wow, I Really Need This! cD3

[Celina Hansen]

User ID: 4 drunk
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 17:15:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="--87873530057614470287"


87873530057614470287
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Debian-laptop-request

Why pay more when you can enjoy the best and cheapest pills online? 
Nearly 80 types to choose which makes ours pharmacy the largest and the best available!

No Appointments.
No Waiting Rooms.
No Prior Prescription Required.

See why our customers re-order more than any competitor!

http://bestpills.mypills4us.com/?k=S17h49







This is one-time mai|ing. No rem0val are required.
G[20

87873530057614470287--


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

Re: Some advice for a non-binary package

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:37:58PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> tripping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> 
> > I have a project that I think would be useful, it uses debian as a
> > base.  It doesn't contain any binary code, only python and shell
> > scripts.  It's an easy to use cluster installer/maintainer.  It
> > excpects a kernel to be there, and I don't mind including one, similar
> > to the system-imager package, which ships with a binary kernel.
> >
> > What I'm not sure about is the whole Makefile/source package relevance
> > for a package like this.
> 
> This will make a binary package that is "Architecture: any". You still

No, Arch: all.

- Matt


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