debhelper error -- bug?
Hey all, The latest release of debhelper(0.99.2) broke my packages. Is it a bug in it, or my packages? I think it the recent change to dh_movefiles (see the changelog) did it. Unfortunately I don't know enough bash to fix it myself. Thanks. Here is the error: --- Building: emusic-docs mkdir -p /tmp/emusic/emusic-0.6.1/debian/build/emusic-docs/usr/doc dh_installdocs -pemusic-docs -P/tmp/emusic/emusic-0.6.1/debian/build/emusic-docs README AUTHORS dh_installchangelogs -pemusic-docs -P/tmp/emusic/emusic-0.6.1/debian/build/emusic-docs ChangeLog dh_movefiles -pemusic-docs -P/tmp/emusic/emusic-0.6.1/debian/build/emusic-docs dh_movefiles: I was asked to move files from debian/tmp to debian/tmp. make: *** [emusic-docs] Error 1 Here is the excerpt from the rules file: i=$(shell pwd)/debian/tmp b=$(shell pwd)/debian/build ... emusic-docs: install @echo "--- Building: $@" mkdir -p $(b)/$@/usr/doc dh_installdocs -p$@ -P$(b)/$@ README AUTHORS dh_installchangelogs -p$@ -P$(b)/$@ ChangeLog dh_movefiles -p$@ -P$(b)/$@ dh_compress -p$@ -P$(b)/$@ dh_fixperms -p$@ -P$(b)/$@ dh_installdeb-p$@ -P$(b)/$@ dh_gencontrol-p$@ -P$(b)/$@ dh_md5sums -p$@ -P$(b)/$@ dh_builddeb -p$@ -P$(b)/$@ -- Brian Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org/~bma/ Debian/GNU Linux Developer -- http://www.debian.org/ PGP Key: pub 1024/3A800C65 1998/04/20 Brian M. Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "People who don't understand UNIX are doomed to recreate it, badly." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: my pgp key
On Sun, Sep 13, 1998 at 12:46:21AM -0500, Philip Thiem wrote: > I've been apply for developer status, but the pgp key I give them > I had to retire (because I could remember by passphrase), and I > concerned that once accepted, they will decide to use the pgp key I'm no > longer using. Who should I contact to inform them of this change. Probably Martin Schulze or James Troup would be the people to talk to. (Look at the people page for their email addresses, or just use [EMAIL PROTECTED], I think). They deal with most (all?) of the new maintainer applicants. -- Brian Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org/~bma/ _ _ _ __| | ___| |__ (_) __ _ _ __ / _` |/ _ \ '_ \| |/ _` | '_ \ Debian GNU/Linux Developer | (_| | __/ |_) | | (_| | | | | PGP Key: 0x3A800C65 \__,_|\___|_.__/|_|\__,_|_| |_| http://www.debian.org Debian Linux: Because Size DOES Matter pgph2TA4FAY4E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: my pgp key
On Thu, Sep 17, 1998 at 12:49:53AM -0400, Shaleh wrote: > Igor (Grobman?) is filling in for James Troup. Oh? Is James on vacation? -- Brian Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org/~bma/ _ _ _ __| | ___| |__ (_) __ _ _ __ / _` |/ _ \ '_ \| |/ _` | '_ \ Debian GNU/Linux Developer | (_| | __/ |_) | | (_| | | | | PGP Key: 0x3A800C65 \__,_|\___|_.__/|_|\__,_|_| |_| http://www.debian.org Debian Linux: Because Size DOES Matter pgp9mZtEaLl0a.pgp Description: PGP signature
Removing an obsoleted package
Hello, In my latest upload of eMusic, libemusic-dev was obsoleted (the author does not build static libs anymore). How can I completely purge this from dselect? Can I? Thanks. Brian
Incorrect section
Hello, I have a package that is all stuffed into one section (and an incorrect one, at that). Can I just modify the Section: fields in debian/control, reupload, and have things sort themselves out? Is there anything special I need to do? Thanks, Brian -- Brian Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org/~bma/ _ _ _ __| | ___| |__ (_) __ _ _ __ / _` |/ _ \ '_ \| |/ _` | '_ \ Debian GNU/Linux Developer | (_| | __/ |_) | | (_| | | | | PGP Key: 0x3A800C65 \__,_|\___|_.__/|_|\__,_|_| |_| http://www.debian.org Debian Linux: Because Size DOES Matter
Re: Speaking of new maintainers (WAS Re: getting bugs moved to a new maintainer)
On Tue, Oct 20, 1998 at 05:14:30PM -0700, Jeremiah Cornelius wrote: > You had announced on the E-dev list that you were no longer interested > in being the .deb maintainer for Enlightenment, and had found two new > parties for this. > Could you announce this again? You also mentioned the packaging of > snaps for Debian. Are these folks ready to publicize with sites, etc.? I am now maintainer of imlib, fnlib, stringlist, audiofile, esound, emusic, and e. llane, once he becomes maintainer, will take over e. The auto-building of gnome snaps project is still being worked on, if you're interested your best contacts woudl probably be me, shaleh, or jim pick. It's been slow goign (lots of school stuff to work on too), so any help is most appreciated. Thanks! Brian
*.m4 files in -dev packages
Are *.m4 files usually distributed in -dev packages, or are they only needed for those who compile CVS apps? - Forwarded message from Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - I think that is only an issue w/ CVS compilers. If so, not your problem. You should NOT be shipping a imlib.m4 in your package. Ask the powers that be about this. I could be wrong. But this should only affect people who compile apps from CVS. and if they are doing that, then they should not be using your package anyway. On 09-Nov-98 Brian Almeida wrote: > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/29/29169.htm - End forwarded message -
need to replace .orig.tar.gz
Hi, I was under the impression that one could replace an existing .orig.tar.gz if it was uploaded along with the .dsc and the md5sums matched. I have a package in which the upstream version didn't change any (audiofile) but I needed some updates from the CVS tree so that it would work with another of my packages (esound). How can I get the new .orig.tar.gz into the archive? Thanks, bma -- Brian Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org/~bma/ Debian GNU/Linux Developer PGP Key: 0x3A800C65 http://www.debian.org
libs package - necessary?
One of my packages, eMusic, uses libraries for plugins. They are placed in /usr/lib/eMusic (and thus does not call ldconfig). Do I *really* need a libemusic0 package? Also, the soname does not change between releases - it is always libfoo.so.0.0.0. All packages version depend on each other, since a new releases are incompatible with old ones...I'd *like* to put it all in one .deb...would this violate policy?
Pseudo-solutions for versioned Provides?
Hi, I'm trying to consolidate emusic into one .deb, and have no problems, except one - the old packages have a versioned Depends: on one another. I know that dpkg can't do versioned Provides...suggestions? Since this is unstable, is it ok if I break them, and make the users manually remove the offending packages? Or perhaps release an interim set that removes the versioned dependencies, let that sit in the archive for a while, then upload the new .deb? Ideas? I know some of you must have thoughts on this issue. Brian
Re: Unidentified subject!
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 05:28:18PM +0530, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > The package I am currently looking at is cheops, single binary, with files > in lib and share. Once started, I can package for the two architectures I > have, i386 and sparc. Hate to break it to you, but cheops is already maintained by Erick Kinnee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > Also, a pointer to PGP (insofar as required to sign packages) would be > appreciated. the scripts will automatically sign the packages when the are built unless told otherwise. -- Brian Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian Linux Developer - http://www.debian.org finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for GPG/PGP public keys We are but packets in the internet of life.
Re: Becoming a new Developer
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 10:08:00AM -0500, Chris McKillop wrote: > Well, I am finally getting around to applying to become a > developer so I can help out Jim on the ARM port. How long does it > usually take for the developer application to be processed? I have > heard depressing comments on irc of over 10 months. Can anyone > confirm/deny this for me? Thanks. It took me a month or two, but a large majority of the time it was that I kept missing the new maintainer team when they called, since there's a time difference of at least 5 hours...
Re: Becoming a new Developer
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 08:53:12PM -0700, R Garth Wood wrote: > > It took me a month or two, but a large majority of the time it was that I > > kept > > missing the new maintainer team when they called, since there's a time > > difference of at least 5 hours... > > It might be a good idea to email the person before the team actually > calls. Usually they called as I was in transition from work to home :-) But I finally caught up with them.
Re: filenames with more than 100 chars ?
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 08:48:16PM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote: > Hello list ! > > Well tar has no problems with filenames that are longer than 100 chars. > It just keeps printing ././@LongLink for every file but unpacks without > problems. > > But now lintian starts complaining about it (hey, ././ *is* a uncommon > directory :-)) but even worse dpkg refuses to unpack it since it claims > that the tarball is corrupt ! > > How to solve this ? Welcome to the wonderful world of mysql-bench :-) Apparently dpkg doesn't support long file namesI was told that there were several patches out there for it, and that iwj just has to 'pick one'
