Re: RFS:qterm
Li Daobing wrote: > qterm (0.4.0pre2-0.3) unstable; urgency=low > > * NMU. > * Add icon. (closes: #289970) > * del admin/CVS. > * debian/control > - update Standards-Version to 3.6.1. > - update debhelper to 4.1.0(statisfy compat and cdbs) > * del debian/manpage.1.ex debian/manpage.sgml.ex > > -- Li Daobing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 17 May 2005 07:34:12 +0800 > > upload to http://mentors.debian.net/ and > ftp://ftp-master.debian.org/pub/UploadQueue/ > > The official maintainer is Anthony Fok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, but he did not > work since Wed, 16 Apr 2003. > Another question about qterm: If I want to modify the source tarball, for example, I want to delete the admin/CVS and debian/*.ex in the source, should I modify the version number, for example, called it 0.4.0pre2.dfsg.1-1 or some other name? Thanks. -- Best regards, Li Daobing signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Package name
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 01:16:57PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > >>I have still not totally given up on convincing him, though, so I'll be > >>in touch :-) > >It's not acceptable to install a shared library without an SONAME for two > >reasons: > >- if the library's ABI changes and the filename doesn't change, the new > > library package will have to conflict with the old package, forcing > > removal of all other packages using the old version of the library > >- if at a later date upstream comes to their senses and starts using an > > SONAME for their shared library, the *-dev* package will still have to > > conflict with the old library package for the same reason, forcing removal > > of packages depending on it > But if I do introduce SONAME to the Debian version, what version should > it have? The only sensible answer that I can think of is "0", as any > other answer is sure to conflict with the upstream choice, should they > come to their senses in the future. I don't see the major difference > between saying "SONAME" version 0 and not giving SONAME at all, but I > don't mind it so much either. An so version of 0 is the simple so version least likely to conflict with upstream's versioning in the future. If you're worried that you may have to go through ABI changes on your own before upstream gets around to the whole sanity thing, then it's probably best to use a Debian-specific so versioning scheme: e.g, libargtable2.so.0debian0, libargtable2.so.0debian1, etc. You can find examples of such library package names in the archive. > >Introducing an SONAME to a library in Debian when it doesn't have one > >upstream isn't great, but the only sensible alternative is to not ship it > >as > >a shared library at all. > Another thing that comes up is an incompatibility between the deb > currently provided by the site (as well as binaries compiled with > libargtable compiled from source) and the deb we would provide. Binaries > compiled with the former two will depend on "libargtable2.so", while > binaries compiled with the later will depend on "libargtable2.so.0". I > can fix it by including the symlink from libargtable2.so to > libargtable2.so.0 in the non-dev package, I think. Will it work? If you include that symlink in the non-dev package, you have the same problem as before with packages needing to conflict with one another. That being the case, I don't think you have any responsibility to work around upstream's broken .debs in your Debian packages. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS:qterm
Li Daobing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I want to modify the source tarball, for example, I want to delete > the admin/CVS and debian/*.ex in the source, should I modify the version > number, for example, called it 0.4.0pre2.dfsg.1-1 or some other name? The version number consists of two parts for non-native packages (by far the majority). cf. Debian Policy. The upstream part should reflect which upstream source your package is based on (released version, release candidate or in some cases, CVS-or-whatever snapshot). If this doesn't change, you should only increment the Debian part of the version number. The .dfsg thing means that the upstream source has been changed in a substantial way in order to comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines; important enough that users should know they are not getting what is shipped by upstream---and why. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS:qterm
* Li Daobing [Sun, 22 May 2005 15:11:06 +0800]: Hi! > > The official maintainer is Anthony Fok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, but he did not > > work since Wed, 16 Apr 2003. If you'd like to adopt the package instead of NMUing, that'd be great, since the package will receive more attention. I've asked Jeroen van Wolffelaar, currently in charge of the MIA process, and he says there'd be no problem with you adopting qterm. > Another question about qterm: > If I want to modify the source tarball, for example, I want to delete > the admin/CVS and debian/*.ex in the source, should I modify the version > number, for example, called it 0.4.0pre2.dfsg.1-1 or some other name? As you're repacking the tarball, the -1 bit wouldn't be included in the tarball name itself. As for the .dfsg bit, that's normally used when the tarball was modified to removed files that failed to meet the DFSG. If it's really necessary that you remove those files (which doesn't really seem the case to me, so perhaps it's better to keep the pristine upstream tarball), you could use 0.4.0pre2a, or 0.4.0pre2.ds.1 (ds is commonly used to, and it stands, I believe, for "debian source"). HTH, -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Listening to: Vitalic - Trahison Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud: after a while, you realize the pig is enjoying it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package name
Steve Langasek wrote: But if I do introduce SONAME to the Debian version, what version should it have? The only sensible answer that I can think of is "0", as any other answer is sure to conflict with the upstream choice, should they come to their senses in the future. I don't see the major difference between saying "SONAME" version 0 and not giving SONAME at all, but I don't mind it so much either. An so version of 0 is the simple so version least likely to conflict with upstream's versioning in the future. If you're worried that you may have to go through ABI changes on your own before upstream gets around to the whole sanity thing, then it's probably best to use a Debian-specific so versioning scheme: e.g, libargtable2.so.0debian0, libargtable2.so.0debian1, etc. You can find examples of such library package names in the archive. No, I think I'll go with "0". Another thing that comes up is an incompatibility between the deb currently provided by the site (as well as binaries compiled with libargtable compiled from source) and the deb we would provide. Binaries compiled with the former two will depend on "libargtable2.so", while binaries compiled with the later will depend on "libargtable2.so.0". I can fix it by including the symlink from libargtable2.so to libargtable2.so.0 in the non-dev package, I think. Will it work? If you include that symlink in the non-dev package, you have the same problem as before with packages needing to conflict with one another. That being the case, I don't think you have any responsibility to work around upstream's broken .debs in your Debian packages. Lost you there. If the symlink is there for the non-dev, who am I conflicting with? Assuming I make sure that libargtable2 is not installable while argtable2 is on the machine (by either doing "conflicts" or providing an upgrade package), what are the risks? Even if some future version of argtable introduces versioning, the dev package always depends on the non dev of the precise same version, so it seems I'm not blocking any future upgrade path here. Am I missing something here? Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Modification on the installer: "Debian software selection"
Hi, On Friday 20 May 2005 14:09, Njes Nilsen wrote: > Am a bit unsure whether this is the correct mailing list, but I ask anyway: debian-boot would have been the right mailing list... > What I want is to edit the installation so the user get another option > here, which will install some given packages. > I've read some of the information about how to hack the installer on the > debian wiki page, but can't find any information about how to do this. > > Anyone got some documentation I can read / show me an example? You'll find an example on http://www.layer-acht.org/d-i/simple-preseeding-examples/ (preseed_2.cfg, mykde-task.desc and mykde-list_01 (which has to be renamed to mykde-list (need to fix my CMS...))) Basicly I drop the task-definitions to the appropiate directory (see preseed_2.cfg base_config/early_command) and select this task using preseeding. If you don't preseed task-selection the user can choose his/her tasks... HTH + regards, Holger pgpQbMxNW3SqV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question about packaging a library.
Thanks for you reply. The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a "proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software. And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it. So, i don't really know how to start. For my soft, I ran dh_make which help me a lot. So maybe, I could do all the necessary things manually,is it a good idea according to you ? I download the package you mentioned, and i will have a look in the afternoon, thanks a lot for your help. Regards, Sylvain Ps: What does ITP means ? Andreas Fester wrote: Hi, Probably someone to help you, actually. See if you can get a sponsor for the library (have you done an ITP for the library?), see if there is an existing maintainer who might help you. I am working on debian packages for log4cxx for some time, and this is also my first package; learned a lot through it, so if you have any specific questions do not hesitate to contact me. Basically, the descriptions in the New Maintainers Guide should be enough as a starting point, and you should at least read the Debian Library Packaging guide you mentioned because it contains some important information about naming conventions. You could apt-get source some other simple library to see how other libraries are built. You could have a look at my work-in-progress at http://littletux.homelinux.org/debian/log4cxx. And you could browse the CVS repository at http://littletux.homelinux.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ to view the path I was following while working on the package :-) Once you have the package done, provide it somewhere so that others can have a look at it. Best Regards, Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about packaging a library.
On Sunday 22 May 2005 1:43 pm, punx120 wrote: > Thanks for you reply. > > The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a > "proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software. Doesn't that make your program non-free in Debian? Free Redistribution The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Packages must be placed in non-free or non-US/non-free if they are not compliant with the DFSG or are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make their distribution problematic. So if this was in Debian and Debian is offered for commercial sale (which it is), your library could not be used. If your program depends on this library, your program becomes non-free. > And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it. So what licence are you using for your program? > So maybe, I could do all the necessary things manually,is it a good idea > according to you ? Personally, I don't like anything in non-free and I certainly refuse to depend on such packages. I'd rather re-write the library from scratch. Hey ho. (I'd be quite happy for non-free to be completely dropped from Debian but it's there as an option so I can easily ignore it.) > Ps: What does ITP means ? http://www.uk.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-newpackage Intend To Package. It's the title used in bug reports to WNPP that declare to other developers what you intend to do. You need to check that no-one else is already attempting the task before reporting an ITP which allows others to find out what is being planned for inclusion. Mine: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=305563 http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-first.en.html If the package is new, and you decide you'd like to see it in Debian, proceed as follows: check if no one else is working on the package already at the list of packages being worked on. http://www.de.debian.org/devel/wnpp/being_packaged -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpJmfFFtOsMz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question about packaging a library.
Hi, The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a "proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software. I had a look into it; since they only seem to provide the library in binary format, this changes some things significantly: The library itself can only go in the non-free section of debian, and since your package depends on it it can only go in the contrib section of debian. Please read Chapter 4.6.1 of the Debian Developers Reference. And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it. So, i don't really know how to start. For my soft, I ran dh_make which help me a lot. So maybe, I could do all the necessary things manually,is it a good idea according to you ? No, its not; I dont know though how the process is when creating packages for the non-free section. Maybe others can jump in here :-) I download the package you mentioned, and i will have a look in the afternoon, thanks a lot for your help. Regards, Sylvain Ps: What does ITP means ? ITP means "Intent To Package" and is meant to notify others that you will create debian packages for some piece of software. Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Fester mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://littletux.homelinux.org ICQ: 326674288 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about packaging a library.
Neil Williams wrote: On Sunday 22 May 2005 1:43 pm, punx120 wrote: Thanks for you reply. The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a "proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software. Doesn't that make your program non-free in Debian? Free Redistribution The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Packages must be placed in non-free or non-US/non-free if they are not compliant with the DFSG or are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make their distribution problematic. So if this was in Debian and Debian is offered for commercial sale (which it is), your library could not be used. If your program depends on this library, your program becomes non-free. And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it. So what licence are you using for your program? Since it's my first "big" program, I'm not used with license, but i use GPL v2. Actually, if I want to package this program and this library, it's essentially to know more about packaging, to have a first approach. And maybe, i could take a package which is Orphaned or RFA. So maybe, I could do all the necessary things manually,is it a good idea according to you ? Personally, I don't like anything in non-free and I certainly refuse to depend on such packages. I'd rather re-write the library from scratch. Hey ho. I agree with you about non-free stuff, but at the time I wrote the program, i need a library like fmod, fmod suited me, so I used it ! (I'd be quite happy for non-free to be completely dropped from Debian but it's there as an option so I can easily ignore it.) Ps: What does ITP means ? http://www.uk.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-newpackage Intend To Package. It's the title used in bug reports to WNPP that declare to other developers what you intend to do. You need to check that no-one else is already attempting the task before reporting an ITP which allows others to find out what is being planned for inclusion. Mine: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=305563 http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-first.en.html If the package is new, and you decide you'd like to see it in Debian, proceed as follows: check if no one else is working on the package already at the list of packages being worked on. http://www.de.debian.org/devel/wnpp/being_packaged -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about packaging a library.
On Sunday 22 May 2005 2:56 pm, punx120 wrote: > Neil Williams wrote: > >>And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it. Then you should not use this library with free software, certainly not with the GPL. > > So what licence are you using for your program? > > Since it's my first "big" program, I'm not used with license, but i use > GPL v2. You mean link a GPL program against a library that is non-free?!?!?! "Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries? Your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If your program depends on a non-free library to do a certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free World. If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to the Free World." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs The GPL does NOT permit you to link a GPL program with a non-free library - one that doesn't permit the distribution of it's source code under the terms of the GPL - which includes for commercial use. Your library doesn't allow commercial use, so it cannot be used by a GPL program. Find another licence or create the library from scratch. "I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would have to obtained those libraries separately. Why doesn't the GPL permit this? If we permitted company A to make a proprietary file, and company B to distribute GPL-covered software linked with that file, the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through. This would be carte blanche for withholding the source code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to GPL-covered software. Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main goals, so this consequence is definitely something we want to avoid." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. " http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL > Actually, if I want to package this program and this library, it's > essentially to know more about licencing! Read the GNU GPL FAQ and read the licence for this library VERY carefully. You might be able to use another licence but I cannot see that you can use the GPL with the library restricted as you've described. You will probably be restricted to a non-free licence. > >>So maybe, I could do all the necessary things manually,is it a good idea > >>according to you ? > > > > Personally, I don't like anything in non-free and I certainly refuse to > > depend on such packages. I'd rather re-write the library from scratch. > > Hey ho. > > I agree with you about non-free stuff, but at the time I wrote the > program, i need a library like fmod, fmod suited me, so I used it ! Please understand your situation before releasing this - you have contaminated the program with this library and either you replace that library in it's entirety, or you use a different licence. As it is, this is a non-free product, despite your claim to licence it under the GPL - it is not free and not fully GPL compatible. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpYTn9f3WIuL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question about packaging a library.
On Sunday 22 May 2005 2:51 pm, Andreas Fester wrote: > > The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a > > "proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software. Can't be done. Debian is commercial - the GPL expressly requires that software CAN be sold for a price. It doesn't have to be sold for a price, but it MUST be ALLOWED. > I had a look into it; since they only seem to provide the library in > binary format, this changes some things significantly: The library > itself can only go in the non-free section of debian, and since > your package depends on it it can only go in the contrib section > of debian. Please read Chapter 4.6.1 of the Debian Developers > Reference. I agree. Your program is not compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. I don't see how it could be accepted into any part of Debian. The source code is only available if you purchase a commercial licence at $1,000 per licence! (That does *not* even include payments for using patented MP3!) There are plenty of libraries already in GNU/Linux Debian that are GPL compatible (if not GPL or LGPL themselves) *and* which are not encumbered by patents on MP3. Use Ogg Vorbis instead. There's no need to rewrite FMOD, it's completely redundant. Use an existing library - maybe one that is already used by Amarok, XMMS, Xine, Totem or any of the other packages of a similar ilk. You *cannot* release your program under the GPL if you link to FMOD! You made a BAD choice of library and you'll have to start again with a usable library. There are a large number of packages like yours - you won't stand a chance of finding users if you stick with restrictive licences like FMOD. Why should anyone even look at non-free or contrib packages when so many free packages can perform comprehensive audio performance? -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpYbqnOMfnXH.pgp Description: PGP signature
How to express dependencies for Java(TM)?
I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM or Sun JDK (for build) and JRE (for execution). I know that this means the packages will end up in contrib. However, I am not sure what the correct way to express the depends and build- depends. Can someone help me out on this? -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question about packaging a library.
Just so things are clear - I am not a lawyer. Neil Williams wrote: On Sunday 22 May 2005 2:56 pm, punx120 wrote: Neil Williams wrote: And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it. Then you should not use this library with free software, certainly not with the GPL. So what licence are you using for your program? Since it's my first "big" program, I'm not used with license, but i use GPL v2. You mean link a GPL program against a library that is non-free?!?!?! "Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries? Your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If your program depends on a non-free library to do a certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free World. If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to the Free World." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs That's not a legal reason. That's an ideological reason. The GPL does NOT permit you to link a GPL program with a non-free library - one that doesn't permit the distribution of it's source code under the terms of the GPL - which includes for commercial use. Your library doesn't allow commercial use, so it cannot be used by a GPL program. Find another licence or create the library from scratch. I'm sorry, but that is totally wrong. Are you claiming that rsyncrypto is illegal, because it is GPL and links with OpenSSL (which is BSD)? And if you claim this ridiculous claim, who is the offended party? Who has the power to sue me for GPL violation? I'm the sole copyright holder. If you really want to make your code free, you might want to put an exception into your GPL license saying it's ok to link with this library. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs "I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would have to obtained those libraries separately. Why doesn't the GPL permit this? If we permitted company A to make a proprietary file, and company B to distribute GPL-covered software linked with that file, the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through. This would be carte blanche for withholding the source code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to GPL-covered software. But that's not the case here, is it? He's the copyright holder for the GPL part. Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. " http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL Actually, if I want to package this program and this library, it's essentially to know more about licencing! Read the GNU GPL FAQ and read the licence for this library VERY carefully. You might be able to use another licence but I cannot see that you can use the GPL with the library restricted as you've described. You will probably be restricted to a non-free licence. You forgot the "I am not a layer" disclaimer. You really really should put one there, because it seems to my unprofessional opinion that your advice has no legal basis. Even the GNU FAQ, which I sometimes disagree with, claims you can release the code as above (see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs. I know you quoted from that one, but please do read the whole of the answer, as you only quoted part of it). I agree with you about non-free stuff, but at the time I wrote the program, i need a library like fmod, fmod suited me, so I used it ! Please understand your situation before releasing this - you have contaminated the program with this library and either you replace that library in it's entirety, or you use a different licence. As it is, this is a non-free product, despite your claim to licence it under the GPL - it is not free and not fully GPL compatible. Not entirely true. It is no less free than WinCVS or Mozilla for Windows. It cannot go into Debian main. It's a definite downside. However, please accept that some people apply less significance to the question of "purely free" than you do, and don't give advice based on legal situation as you would like it to be, rather than as it is. As it is, punx cannot TECHNICALLY perform a GPL violation with his code, as he is the copyright holder, and does not need anyone's license
Re: How to express dependencies for Java(TM)?
I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM or Sun JDK (for build) and JRE (for execution). I know that this means the packages will end up in contrib. However, I am not sure what the correct way to express the depends and build- depends. Can someone help me out on this? do they *really* depend on a non-free jdk, or will they run with kaffe or sablevm? --elijah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to express dependencies for Java(TM)?
elijah wright wrote: > >> I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM or Sun >> JDK (for build) and JRE (for execution). I know that this means the >> packages will end up in contrib. However, I am not sure what the >> correct way to express the depends and build- depends. Can someone >> help me out on this? > > > do they *really* depend on a non-free jdk, or will they run with kaffe > or sablevm? > > --elijah > > Yes. All are heavy Swing/AWT apps. TTBOMK, that makes any free java a non-player. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question about packaging a library.
On 22.05.2005, at 19:15, Shachar Shemesh wrote: I'm sorry, but that is totally wrong. Are you claiming that rsyncrypto is illegal, because it is GPL and links with OpenSSL (which is BSD)? And if you claim this ridiculous claim, who is the offended party? Who has the power to sue me for GPL violation? I'm the sole copyright holder. There are linking exceptions issued by the copyright holders especially for programs linked against OpenSSL. Otherwise GNUTLS has to be used. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gettext, autopoint and cvs depends (Build-Depends)
Hello, A short question: I have a package, where I run autopoint during build process. Now the situation is, that gettext only suggests, but not depends on cvs. So without adding cvs to 'Build-Depends:', the build fails in a chrooted environment (pbuilder). What I need to know is, if Debian's buildd can live/work without this dependency or not? Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs depends (Build-Depends)
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Daniel Leidert wrote: > A short question: I have a package, where I run autopoint during build > process. Now the situation is, that gettext only suggests, but not > depends on cvs. So without adding cvs to 'Build-Depends:', the build > fails in a chrooted environment (pbuilder). What I need to know is, if > Debian's buildd can live/work without this dependency or not? No, you should build-depend on cvs if you run autopoint during the build process. This is explained here: /usr/share/doc/gettext/README.Debian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about packaging a library.
Well, all this discussion about license are too complicated for me since I'm not used with license. I'm just a student who wrote last year a program for my studies. I don't want it to integrate debian. I just wanted to place source files on my website. And I thought that putting a debian package could be a good idea; first because this enable me to have a first approach of debian packaging, and also because it may be more convenient in order to have a quick look to the program, without building it. Since my program needs FMOD, I wanted to build a a simple package and put it on my website, to help people to install this library. Concerning the license, I have just a few couple of questions. Is there really a legal problem, according to fmod license, to distribute my program under the gpl license ? If yes, what license would be best ? Do you think there is a problem, if a made a fmod package, and i only put it on my website ? (I let a message on fmod board, nobody told me there is a problem about license, or such) In the same way, if I wrote a program using java (Sun), could i distribute it under the GPL license ? Thanks for your help. Shachar Shemesh wrote: Just so things are clear - I am not a lawyer. Neil Williams wrote: On Sunday 22 May 2005 2:56 pm, punx120 wrote: Neil Williams wrote: And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it. Then you should not use this library with free software, certainly not with the GPL. So what licence are you using for your program? Since it's my first "big" program, I'm not used with license, but i use GPL v2. You mean link a GPL program against a library that is non-free?!?!?! "Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries? Your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If your program depends on a non-free library to do a certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free World. If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to the Free World." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs That's not a legal reason. That's an ideological reason. The GPL does NOT permit you to link a GPL program with a non-free library - one that doesn't permit the distribution of it's source code under the terms of the GPL - which includes for commercial use. Your library doesn't allow commercial use, so it cannot be used by a GPL program. Find another licence or create the library from scratch. I'm sorry, but that is totally wrong. Are you claiming that rsyncrypto is illegal, because it is GPL and links with OpenSSL (which is BSD)? And if you claim this ridiculous claim, who is the offended party? Who has the power to sue me for GPL violation? I'm the sole copyright holder. If you really want to make your code free, you might want to put an exception into your GPL license saying it's ok to link with this library. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs "I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would have to obtained those libraries separately. Why doesn't the GPL permit this? If we permitted company A to make a proprietary file, and company B to distribute GPL-covered software linked with that file, the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through. This would be carte blanche for withholding the source code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to GPL-covered software. But that's not the case here, is it? He's the copyright holder for the GPL part. Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. " http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL Actually, if I want to package this program and this library, it's essentially to know more about licencing! Read the GNU GPL FAQ and read the licence for this library VERY carefully. You might be able to use another licence but I cannot see that you can use the GPL with the library restricted as you've described. You will probably be restricted to a non-free licence. You forgot the "I am not a layer" disclaimer. You really really should put one there, because it seems to my unprofessional opinion that your advice has no legal basis. Even the GNU FAQ, which I sometimes
Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs depends (Build-Depends)
Am Sonntag, den 22.05.2005, 19:49 +0200 schrieb Santiago Vila: > On Sun, 22 May 2005, Daniel Leidert wrote: > > > A short question: I have a package, where I run autopoint during build > > process. Now the situation is, that gettext only suggests, but not > > depends on cvs. So without adding cvs to 'Build-Depends:', the build > > fails in a chrooted environment (pbuilder). What I need to know is, if > > Debian's buildd can live/work without this dependency or not? > > No, you should build-depend on cvs if you run autopoint during the > build process. Thanks. Then I was right to add it. > This is explained here: > > /usr/share/doc/gettext/README.Debian You are right. I only read the autotools-dev README, which did not contain this information - and I did not find much documentation about the buildd. Thanks for pointing me to the right document. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to express dependencies for Java(TM)?
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 01:22:19PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > elijah wright wrote: > > > >> I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM or Sun > >> JDK (for build) and JRE (for execution). I know that this means the > >> packages will end up in contrib. However, I am not sure what the > >> correct way to express the depends and build- depends. Can someone > >> help me out on this? > > > > > > do they *really* depend on a non-free jdk, or will they run with kaffe > > or sablevm? > > > > --elijah > > > > > > Yes. All are heavy Swing/AWT apps. TTBOMK, that makes any free java a > non-player. Better try it out before doing such statements. AWT mainly just works. Swing is progressing fast. The above statement depends heavily on the app you wanna run and it should not be just said to try to avoid free software alternatives. Michael -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: performance tip for the package development stage
I demand that Shachar Shemesh may or may not have written... > I'm sorry if this is well known. I haven't seen it anywhere, and I thought > I'd share it with everybody. > During the initial package development stage, there is a lot of repeated > compilation of the same package over and over again. [... summary: use > ccache] Alternatively, try to alter the source so that you don't need multiple compilations. (This worked for vdr.) -- | Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at | sarge,| Northumberland | youmustbejoking | RISC OS | Toon Army | demon co uk | We've got Shearer, you haven't This tagline intentionally left blank. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to express dependencies for Java(TM)?
Michael Koch wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 01:22:19PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > >>elijah wright wrote: >> I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM or Sun JDK (for build) and JRE (for execution). I know that this means the packages will end up in contrib. However, I am not sure what the correct way to express the depends and build- depends. Can someone help me out on this? >>> >>> >>>do they *really* depend on a non-free jdk, or will they run with kaffe >>>or sablevm? >>> >>>--elijah >>> >>> >> >>Yes. All are heavy Swing/AWT apps. TTBOMK, that makes any free java a >>non-player. > > > Better try it out before doing such statements. AWT mainly just works. > Swing is progressing fast. The above statement depends heavily on the app > you wanna run and it should not be just said to try to avoid free software > alternatives. > > > Michael Point taken. One I know for certain uses features specific to the Sun JDK (it is for a school project). Eventually I hope to be able to get rid of the Sun-isms. In the mean time, I would like to be able to get the pacakge built properly. Also, are there any good references on getting Java apps to compile with free Java development tools? (No, I have not yet Googled for this info). -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to express dependencies for Java(TM)?
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:19:14PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > Michael Koch wrote: > > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 01:22:19PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > >>elijah wright wrote: > >> > I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM or Sun > JDK (for build) and JRE (for execution). I know that this means the > packages will end up in contrib. However, I am not sure what the > correct way to express the depends and build- depends. Can someone > help me out on this? > >>> > >>> > >>>do they *really* depend on a non-free jdk, or will they run with kaffe > >>>or sablevm? > >>> > >>>--elijah > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Yes. All are heavy Swing/AWT apps. TTBOMK, that makes any free java a > >>non-player. > > > > > > Better try it out before doing such statements. AWT mainly just works. > > Swing is progressing fast. The above statement depends heavily on the app > > you wanna run and it should not be just said to try to avoid free software > > alternatives. > > > > > > Michael > > Point taken. One I know for certain uses features specific to the Sun > JDK (it is for a school project). Eventually I hope to be able to get > rid of the Sun-isms. In the mean time, I would like to be able to get > the pacakge built properly. > > Also, are there any good references on getting Java apps to compile with > free Java development tools? (No, I have not yet Googled for this info). Most free runtimes provide directly or indirectly a JDK-like environment. So if you use ant just point JAVA_HOME to it. Michael -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to express dependencies for Java(TM)?
Michael Koch wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:19:14PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: >>Also, are there any good references on getting Java apps to compile with >>free Java development tools? (No, I have not yet Googled for this info). > > > Most free runtimes provide directly or indirectly a JDK-like environment. > So if you use ant just point JAVA_HOME to it. > OK. Makes sense :-) I will try that first. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
No debian/ folder in .deb file
After your answerers on this thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/05/msg00381.html I tried to edit the tasksel .deb file (just for my own testing purpose atm.) And I extracted the .deb file to a folder using the dpkg -x command. Edited some of the files, and thought I could just rebuild the .deb file. But then I read this one: http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ I found out that I needed some files (http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html) to build the .deb So I thought I would find a debian/ folder in tasksel_2.23_all.deb, but I don't. Why not? Don't you need some of those files to build the .deb in the first place? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No debian/ folder in .deb file
Njes Nilsen wrote: > After your answerers on this thread: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/05/msg00381.html I tried to > edit the tasksel .deb file (just for my own testing purpose atm.) > And I extracted the .deb file to a folder using the dpkg -x command. > Edited some of the files, and thought I could just rebuild the .deb file. > > But then I read this one: http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ > I found out that I needed some files > (http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html) to build the .deb > So I thought I would find a debian/ folder in tasksel_2.23_all.deb, but > I don't. > The tasksel_2.23_all.deb is the binary pacakge. If you want to modify the package you need to do 'apt-get source tasksel', which will leave you the complete Debian source of tasksel, including all the package building infrastructure for the package. > Why not? Don't you need some of those files to build the .deb in the > first place? -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
please sponsor xdm-options
Please sponsor me. I've just posted project xdm-options_0.1_all.deb on SourceForge. Its very competitve and opposite in philosophy to GDM. Eye candy? Or functinality? (it's not meant to be a "replacement" but the alternative for the rest ;) I have other personal projects as well, some large, some sh utils. I'd also like to help respond to bug reports / fix bugs on projects. A writeup about me is on sourceforge, and xdm-options has screenshots. I'm 35, learned my first computer language at 13. I have a science degree (philisophical, not applied). Let me know anything I can do to become a "member of debian", sponsor my own project, as be eligible to help in other debian matters. Have Fun! Contacts: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] # broken - damned nsi - i'm goin yahoo! Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to express dependencies for Java(TM)?
Am Sonntag, den 22.05.2005, 14:19 -0400 schrieb Roberto C. Sanchez: [..] > Also, are there any good references on getting Java apps to compile with > free Java development tools? (No, I have not yet Googled for this info). You could also ask the guys from the pkg-java project: http://pkg-java.alioth.debian.org/ Maybe you can also add your work to this project, if you are going to add it to Debian officially. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about packaging a library.
On Sunday 22 May 2005 6:55 pm, punx120 wrote: > Well, all this discussion about license are too complicated for me since > I'm not used with license. OK, but do make time to learn about licences if you're planning any more programming - it's an integral part of the process. > Concerning the license, I have just a few couple of questions. > Is there really a legal problem, according to fmod license, to > distribute my program under the gpl license ? As Shachar pointed out, it depends and it's not necessarily a legal problem. I did get that bit wrong. I snipped a bit too far and missed out this bit: "If the program is already written using the non-free library, perhaps it is too late to change the decision. You may as well release the program as it stands, rather than not release it. But please mention in the README that the need for the non-free library is a drawback, and suggest the task of changing the program so that it does the same job without the non-free library. Please suggest that anyone who thinks of doing substantial further work on the program first free it from dependence on the non-free library. Note that there may also be legal issues with combining certain non-free libraries with GPL-covered Free Software. Please see the question on GPL software with GPL-incompatible libraries for more information." http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs The section on incompatible libraries comments: " you need to add your own exception, wholly outside of the GPL." In effect, you're amending the GPL to cover one specific exception. It's not ideal and it means you would need to make this clear on the website and in the README, as above. There are licences that don't require amendment or warnings to cover your situation but only you can decide which licence is worth using. Start at the www.gnu.org site and take a look at some of the free and non-free licences - those that are and are not GPL compatible. > If yes, what license would be best ? There are so many, I wouldn't know where to start. > Do you think there is a problem, if a made a fmod package, and i only > put it on my website ? It would be only fair to make it clear to those who would download it that it is "non-free" and if you do use the exception, make that clear too as it does have implications for those who would modify or distribute your code. > In the same way, if I wrote a program using java (Sun), could i > distribute it under the GPL license ? That would be the LGPL, if I read the gnu site correctly, but I don't use Java at all, so I haven't really looked at that. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpZXS3mM7SkQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
How do I specify a particular version intelligently?
I just had a grave bug filed against my releaseforge package. I have traced the fault to an issue with the version of pyqt-tools. If the package is compiled with the version of pyqt-tools in sarge (3.13), it needs to run against python-qt3 version 3.13. However, if it is compiled against pyqt-tools from Sid (3.14), it needs the corresponding python-qt3. What is the correct way to specify the depends and build depends? -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Question about packaging a library.
On Sunday 22 May 2005 6:15 pm, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > >You mean link a GPL program against a library that is non-free?!?!?! > > > >"Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries? > >Your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If your program > >depends on a non-free library to do a certain job, it cannot do that job > > in the Free World. If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, it > > cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is entirely off > > limits to the Free World." > >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs > > That's not a legal reason. That's an ideological reason. True. > >The GPL does NOT permit you to link a GPL program with a non-free library > > - one that doesn't permit the distribution of it's source code under the > > terms of the GPL - which includes for commercial use. Your library > > doesn't allow commercial use, so it cannot be used by a GPL program. Find > > another licence or create the library from scratch. > > I'm sorry, but that is totally wrong. Are you claiming that rsyncrypto > is illegal, because it is GPL and links with OpenSSL (which is BSD)? Well, when we get into the absolute detail, an amended GPL is not "the GNU GPL" and although the exception is allowed, it does mean that the package is not under the GPL in the same way as any other package may be. But yes, there is provision to use the FMOD library IF the exception is used to modify the GPL itself. Sorry about leaving that out. My apologies. I don't see that the program *as run* is free though - punx' code may be free but it won't run without the non-free library and the restriction on distributing it for commercial profit is irksome. Presumably, packages like this that are in non-free or contrib don't get distributed as part of any paid-for media. > And if you claim this ridiculous claim, who is the offended party? If it was released without the exception, you agree (below) that anyone trying to modify and then distribute the modified code would be in a very awkward position. That is, releasing punx' code under the GPL - unaltered and with no exception - would make it almost unusable by subsequent developers, despite the source code for his portion being available. I always look at the GPL from the standpoint of the next generation of developers. When, in some years hence, someone wants to use a package or library, if it depends on a non-free component then that component may be abandoned or unavailable by the time someone needs it. Having the full source code *now* is the only guarantee that the developers who follow you and I will be able to use the code we write. The "offended party" would be our successors and they would have little option but to rewrite the offending library that we thought was so convenient / labour-saving. I know others don't see things that way and these are ideological barriers rather than legal, but if free software is to be around for Debian 10, these are things that I feel are important. The situation with the BSD licence is different because it's not about restricting access to the source code or preventing commercial use of code that uses the library - it's about advertising. The source code remains available so future development is secure. Plus there's a modified BSD licence that can be used for new code. > You forgot the "I am not a layer" disclaimer. You really really should > put one there, because it seems to my unprofessional opinion that your > advice has no legal basis. layer? OK, I know what you mean, no I'm not a lawyer. Is anyone here? > >Please understand your situation before releasing this - you have > > contaminated the program with this library and either you replace that > > library in it's entirety, or you use a different licence. As it is, this > > is a non-free product, despite your claim to licence it under the GPL - > > it is not free and not fully GPL compatible. > > Not entirely true. It is no less free than WinCVS or Mozilla for > Windows. It cannot go into Debian main. It's a definite downside. I'd still put this as "not fully GPL compatible" - in the sense that someone cannot modify it and distribute it like any other GPL program - there would be a special exception. > However, please accept that some people apply less significance to the > question of "purely free" than you do, True. > and don't give advice based on > legal situation as you would like it to be, rather than as it is. I admit I left the bit about exceptions out; the perils of trying to keep things simple. :-( > Without the exception mentioned above, this would put everyone into the > awkward situation where the code is GPL, but it cannot be compiled as > distributed without yanking fmod out. This would definitely put > potential users of the library in a tough spot, but does not make the > code any less free. His code, yes, but as we can tell, his code won't do anything without
need a sponsor, please
Hi, I authored xdm-options (and have man other pet projects, C++, OpenGL, much more). xdm-options is on Source Forge and has screenshots. My gpg private key (see user id below) was made using defaults from sarge's gpg --gen-key. Should I beg for it to be signed? My real location is below too. I would also like to help Debian by doing (whatever is seems important that my skills allow). New Package maintainer. Fletching bug reports. Whatever, except MS Windows. A little about me: I'm 35, have a science degree, have used linux since '92. More info is on sourceforge's "resume" and my full resume is offline since hend.net is temporarily down (nsi xfer problem), ask if you want it. I'm a registered member of Source Forge. I use only Debian. I have several users that rely on my network, and two previous ms window dummies running debian who get along fine and have rarely had real problems. I'm on a cable modem, currently, with 5mbit dl, ~ 256k/s ul (or faster). John D. Hendrickson 11416 Bronzedale Dr. Oakton, VA 22124 (H) 703-620-4945 Thanks, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] # whois fails, currently # --keyserver keyring.debian.org # --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net gpg --recv-keys E75400DB gpg: key E75400DB: "John D. Hendrickson (Have Fun!) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" no gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: unchanged: 1 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com debguy.sourceforge.net.pubring.gpg Description: 3023466032-debguy.sourceforge.net.pubring.gpg debguy.sourceforge.net.pubring.gpg Description: pat350832043
Re: please sponsor xdm-options
John Hendrickson wrote on 22/05/2005 19:18: > Please sponsor me. > > I've just posted project xdm-options_0.1_all.deb on SourceForge. Please read the new maintainers guide is you haven't done so already. And if you want us to review your package (and potentially sponsor it), please supply a URL to the full source(!) package (.dsc, .diff.gz, .orig.tar.gz). Nobody is going to review a binary only package. And probably nobody will go to sourcefourge and search for your package there. It would also help if you gave a good description of your package (like you would describe it in the Debian control file). cu, sven signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Package name
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 01:07:38PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > >>Another thing that comes up is an incompatibility between the deb > >>currently provided by the site (as well as binaries compiled with > >>libargtable compiled from source) and the deb we would provide. Binaries > >>compiled with the former two will depend on "libargtable2.so", while > >>binaries compiled with the later will depend on "libargtable2.so.0". I > >>can fix it by including the symlink from libargtable2.so to > >>libargtable2.so.0 in the non-dev package, I think. Will it work? > >If you include that symlink in the non-dev package, you have the same > >problem as before with packages needing to conflict with one another. That > >being the case, I don't think you have any responsibility to work around > >upstream's broken .debs in your Debian packages. > Lost you there. If the symlink is there for the non-dev, who am I > conflicting with? Assuming I make sure that libargtable2 is not > installable while argtable2 is on the machine (by either doing > "conflicts" or providing an upgrade package), what are the risks? Even > if some future version of argtable introduces versioning, the dev > package always depends on the non dev of the precise same version, so it > seems I'm not blocking any future upgrade path here. The risk is that you can't install the new -dev package on a system that has the old lib installed, because they conflict. One normally wants to be able to build and test binaries for a new library *before* purging the old version of the library... -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: reddo internet translator
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 12:33:31PM +0200, David Gil wrote: > I did it, Depends now looks like this: > > Depends: python (>= 2.3), python (<< 2.4) > > I have read about it before at debian python policy. But the problem now > is that my ubuntu friends can not install reddo cause ubuntu use python > 2.4. I know that ubuntu is not debian, i want to make packages for > debian, not for ubuntu.. but using: > > Depends: python (>= 2.3) > > my friends will be happy.. What should I do? Use dh_python to generate the dependency, rather than hardcoding it. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe
unsubscribe
