Re: alpine_1.0+dfsg-2_source.changes REJECTED
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 11:51:14AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > ISTR it was intended to ensure the package at least builds fine in the > developer's environment, to reduce FTBFSes. I wasn't there at that time > though, but I've been told several times that I'll be an old DD before > it gets a chance to be changed. I guess you can call it historical. The most precise reference to this issue it comes to my mind is: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/01/msg00760.html In that mail it is well explained (or at least, it is explained in a way I agree with) why we should require *also* binary packages to be uploaded. However, it is not well motivated IMO why we shouldn't, for example, upload them and throw them away afterwards (see footnote [4], with which I personally disagree). The point of not having resources I'm quite sure can be mitigated. Feel free to revamp the discussion. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using symbols files
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:56:18PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > Quick summary: IMHO, symbols files are largely irrelevant if not > supported upstream via versioned symbols. Can you please argument this? -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using symbols files
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:44:32AM +, Neil Williams wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 09:35 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:56:18PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > > > Quick summary: IMHO, symbols files are largely irrelevant if not > > > supported upstream via versioned symbols. > > > > Can you please argument this? > > (You omitted the rest of that paragraph which contained my reasoning for > that statement) Here is the full paragraph: > Quick summary: IMHO, symbols files are largely irrelevant if not > supported upstream via versioned symbols. Versioned symbols are > largely useless if the upstream maintenance is generally poor or has a > particularly poor understanding of libtool versioning. Versioned > symbols involve continuous maintenance upstream every time a symbol is > modified (e.g. new functions added) but have no effect on changes > within functions that do not modify the function prototype itself. > Symbols files involve regular maintenance by the Debian maintainer. I've omitted it because I was asking about the first claim of that paragraph which doesn't seem to me backed by its remainder part. Rather, AFAIU the remainder part uses the first sentence as a starting point. But anyhow, let's see ... > Symbols files need data from --version-script in order to calculate much > more than a static list of symbols. i.e. generating symbols for a > library that does not use versioned symbols will end up with a list that > has no history. Each time you generate it, the list of symbols will be Well, no, I disagree: it's simply that you can't extract the history from a single compilation of upstream sources. You still can maintain the history Debian-side and use the symbols available on mole (i.e. those coming from the last stable release as a starting point). Note that I'm not claiming that this is handy or smart, but it is not true that you are necessarily without history. > symbols uses the same version for all symbols - but each time you create > a new release you generate a new symbols file (because no versioned > symbols exist) and all the versions increment to the current release as > if they were all new. Again, no, you can use the diff returned by dpkg-gensymbols and apply it to the old symbol files de facto extending the history available on Debian side. After all the whole mechanism is to have a history for Debian purpose and is Debian-version centric. > e.g. > libqof.so.1 libqof1 #MINVER# > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.7.2 > > at v0.7.3 becomes > libqof.so.1 libqof1 #MINVER# > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.7.3 > > That's wrong because those symbols existed in 0.7.2 and have not changed > in 0.7.3 (or actually some might have changed but without versioned > symbols you cannot tell). But using the diff you won't have bumped the version number in the symbol file, as it has already existed. So, summarizing, ok: I agree that if upstream has versioned symbols you can bootstrap from a more detailed state (but the fact that this is needed for Debian is not necessarily true: to me it seems that it would just make backport easier) and you will be able to recreate the history from scratch when you want, but this is far from asserting that symbol files are useless otherwise. > The most important consideration is that if upstream do not know or care > about versioned symbols, the library API is likely to be poorly > maintained and the symbols file would be useless anyway. i.e. if > upstream do not know or care about versioned symbols, upstream is likely > to have a poor understanding of libtool versioning and poor API > maintenance in general and the work involved in correcting things in the > Debian package is probably not worthwhile. Speculation :) YMMV. And at least we can FTBFS if changes go unnoticed by the maintainer simply looking a upstream changelog or making quick tests. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: terminator
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:43:52PM -0500, Nicolas Valcárcel wrote:
> I still looking for a sponsor, can someone take a look at it?
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=460317
Had a quick look, the following are improvement suggestions:
- the package is not lintian clean:
W: terminator: package-contains-empty-directory usr/lib/
- binary package terminator is missing ${misc:Depends} as a dependency,
which never hurts
- debian/watch is using an https:// URL, is that really needed, doesn't
a http:// URL exist? In the current setting, uscan without
libcrypt-ssleay-perl won't work
Moreover, I would be happy to sponsor it but I've a personal rule: I
want packages to be on some collaborative maintenance repository. So go
find one (add the proper Vcs-* fields to debian/control) and I'll be
happy to sponsor terminator; if no one fits more precisely your package
go for collab-maint.
About the package itself I'm a bit surprised that no key bindings exist
for splitting horizontally/vertically the terminal window. It is really
dumb: we are all using terminals to avoid the mouse pointer, should I
use it just for the split? Similarly, how can I move from one split
area to the other? Only with the mouse pointer???
Can you please consider applying a patch to the package which adds key
bindings for the above mentioned actions?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what?
[EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: terminator
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:12:16AM -0500, Nicolas Valcárcel wrote: > > Moreover, I would be happy to sponsor it but I've a personal rule: I > > want packages to be on some collaborative maintenance repository. So go > > find one (add the proper Vcs-* fields to debian/control) and I'll be > > happy to sponsor terminator; if no one fits more precisely your package > > go for collab-maint. > I'm not sure about you are talking about, we have collaborative bzr > repositories on launchpad, but i can't find information about the Vcs-* > fields, can you point me to them please? See Cyril's mail for the info, but I'm not sure the bzr repo you have is what I'm asking for. I presume the repo on launchpad if the "upstream" code, i.e. it does not contain the debian/ directory with the packaging information or at least it does not contain the Debian-specific (i.e. non-ubuntu) debian/ directory. What I'm asking is to use collab-maint, or some other collaborative maintenance repository on alioth if applicable, to version precisely that debian/ directory. This way if a DD other than you want to contribute work to your package she can simply do debcheckout / work-work-work / debcommit, and be happy with that. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: terminator
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:12:16AM -0500, Nicolas Valcárcel wrote: > There are key bindings there are described on the README file for the Ah, by the way, I was looking for the key binding information in the manpage and the info wasn't there. I did overlook the README. Can you please consider document the key bindings in the man page and, for the split commands, also in the pop-up menu (that's where usually people learn about key bindings)? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: terminator
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 06:41:34AM +0200, Nicolas Valcarcel wrote: > Hi, i'm still looking for a sponsor on this, can anyone check it please? IIRC I'm the only one who offered sponsorship under some conditions. The conditions, and a few other comments I've made in this thread, are still to be addressed. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: packages.qa website shows old version @mentors.d.n
> hi all, > > i've realized that packages.qa.d.o shows old version packages uploaded to > mentors.d.n, for example: > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/j/jabberd2.html > > when are uploads from mentors removed ? anyway, maybe we should check the > version before showing these mentors info ? The problem with that information is that packages got removed from mentors.d.n if the exact version is uploaded to the official archive, but they do not get removed if an higher version superseding that on version is uploaded. See [1]. I've been told that mentors.d.n code is in flux and that that bug will be fixed soon. That's one of the reason why I did not implement the "higher than" check in the PTS to avoid showing the warning. The other reason is that currently the place where this feature is implemented is the right one, but it is not easy to perform version comparisons there (XSLT stylesheets ...). Before implementing full-fledged version comparison in XSLT, I was hoping the problem gets fixed mentors.d.n side. Cheers. [1] http://upsilon.cc/~zack/blog/posts/2008/08/PTS_integrated_with_mentors_and_gifts/ -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ I'm still an SGML person,this newfangled /\ All one has to do is hit the XML stuff is so ... simplistic -- Manoj \/ right keys at the right time -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages.qa website shows old version @mentors.d.n
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 02:34:25PM -0300, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I forgot to mention: please Cc-me in further posts to this thread, as I'm not currently subscribed to -mentors. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ I'm still an SGML person,this newfangled /\ All one has to do is hit the XML stuff is so ... simplistic -- Manoj \/ right keys at the right time -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sbuild vs relative paths
Dear mentors, the last version of ocaml I uploaded FTBFS on all autobuilders but build properly on my unstable and in a pbuilder chroot. According to the build logs (e.g. [1]) the FTFBS happened at this point: if [ -x ./ocamlopt ]; then \ /usr/bin/make -C ocaml-md5sums/ opt;\ else\ /usr/bin/make -C ocaml-md5sums/ all;\ fi make[1]: Entering directory `/build/buildd/ocaml-3.08.3/ocaml-md5sums' ../ocamlopt -I ../otherlibs/unix -I ../otherlibs/str unix.cmxa str.cmxa -o ocaml-md5sums.opt ocaml-md5sums.ml make[1]: ../ocamlopt: Command not found make[1]: *** [ocaml-md5sums.opt] Error 127 As you can see the test verifies that there exists an "ocamlopt" executable and then enters a subdir from which "../ocamlopt" is invoked unsuccessfully. Am I missing something important about sbuild and its setup on the various autobuilders? Cheers. [1] http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=ocaml&ver=3.08.3-4&arch=powerpc&stamp=1122732142&file=log&as=raw -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: sbuild vs relative paths
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 12:06:45AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > ocamlopt is a '/usr/bin/ocamlrun script text executable' and most > likely that error means the interpreter '/usr/bin/ocamlrun' could not > be found. Gotcha! I was mislead by the error message. Thanks. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: sbuild vs relative paths
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 12:02:17AM +0200, Samuel Mimram wrote: > Julien Cristau helped to find the answer: > > % head -n 1 ocamlopt > #!/usr/bin/ocamlrun > > So the command not found is ocamlrun and not ocamlopt! What a nice bug :-) Thanks for the info. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
upgrades skipping stable releases
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 09:48:26PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > You can remove the transition package now; upgrades skipping a stable > release are not supported. Interesting, is this policy or just common practice in past releases? -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creating a randomized cron entry
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:05:03AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > What is the recommended way to achieve this? Include a script, to be Not a recommended way, but what about creating an entry which is executed every minute and contains a "toss a coin" like function with a probability of 1 / (number of minutes in a day) probability of success? Of course you should have persistency of the seed used by that function and you may choose a coarser granularity than 1 minute. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creating a randomized cron entry
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:24:00PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > This of course has the possibility of running multiple times, so you > might have to include into the cronjob a test: > rm /var/run/foo/ran-today 2>/dev/null && exit 0 > It also doesn't guarantee that it runs at all in any given day, or > that the hosts don't all peg the network at the same time. Well, it is random of course. If the distribution is uniform you're granted that in the long run it will be run on the average once per day. I don't know how stringent were the requirements that the program should be run once per day, no more, no less ... Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creating a randomized cron entry
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:07:17PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > I mainly want to avoid a scenario where all clients arrive at 17 > minutes past the full hour, and need to be served at the same time. Then I would go for a cron entry at the earliest time you want the script to be run (say 6:00 AM) which does something like SHELL=/bin/bash 0 6 * * * root sleep $(( $RANDOM % max_gap )) ; your_command Where max_gap is the number of seconds corresponding to the latest time you want your script to be run - 6:00 AM. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
non-standard configure && cdbs
Dear mentors, I'm using cdbs in a couple of packages which have a configure script not generated by autotools, but hand-written. I need to invoke it before the build target as usual, but since I'm not using the autotools.mk class ./configure is not invoked automatically. What is the proper way to do it with cdbs? I tried something like: configure/foo:: ./configure bla bla bla but this leads to ./configure being executed twice, one time before the actual building, another before the installation. TIA, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: non-standard configure && cdbs
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 07:10:38AM +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > Just put this into your debian/rules and remove the above: > > DEB_CONFIGURE_USER_FLAGS := bla bla bal This variable apparently is used only in autotools.mk, and I'm not using that class. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: non-standard configure && cdbs
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 03:32:35PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote: > The second time the configure/foo rule is called, it will notice that > the configure-foo-stamp is already present, and not run configure. Sure, I was wondering if there is support in cdbs for my need. Thanks for the tip anyway. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: vim-latexsuite
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:29:57PM +0200, Franz Pletz wrote: > I'm in search of a sponsor to adopt vim-latexsuite. I've uploaded all > my files to: > http://franz-pletz.org/debian/vim-latexsuite/ I've no time to review your package right now, but I think you (or your sponsor) should get in touch with someone else of the pkg-vim-maintainers alioth project. Even only because the latest debian available version of vim-latexsuite is on the svn repository of that project. What about starting asking to be added to the alioth project? Thanks for your work! Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: vim-latexsuite
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:20:31PM +0200, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: > > What about starting asking to be added to the alioth project? > They have stated that they will adopt it, see #307166 , but they didn't > answer to that since May, 2005 even if they were pinged more than once. > There was an other person to ITA it, but also MIA lately. Franz really > made the update... So what? I don't want to hijack Franz's work using the hood of vim maintainers. Of course I'm really grateful for what he did. I just happen to think that, since we already have a centralized place for coordinating vim related work and since that place was used in the past for maintaining vim-latexsuite, it would be good for Franz to commit its work there. I also suggest him to ask for review and sponsorship of his work _also_ to pkg-vim people. What's wrong with that? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: vim-latexsuite
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:44:37PM +0200, Franz Pletz wrote: > Yes, I think you're right. As pointed out by Laszlo, I thought the pkg-vim > team isn't really interested anymore because they didn't respond. > > Anyway, thanks for Cc'ing pkg-vim-maintainers, let's see what they think > about it. Well, I happen to be one of them :-) I think you should: 1) create an account on alioth if you don't have one, and let us know the account name 2) ask Norbert Tretkowski to add that account to the pkg-vim-maintainers project (so that you can commit on svn) 3) merge your work with what was available there (assuming something which is not on the latest unstable package was there, which I doubt) 4) ask for feedback on the pkv-vim-maintainers list before the actual sponsoring But note that this only a suggestion, if you prefer to go ahead outside pkg-vim it wont be such a big deal. Thanks again for your work! -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to include information about a source package ?
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 05:47:46PM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > Hi Frank, > Isn't debian/README.Debian the one you would like to edit? No, AFAICT that file is meant for end users. In some packages of mine I use debian/README.whatever and of course I do not in stall those file in the resulting .deb. I don't think there is a general consensus, but maybe we can propose a best-practice ... What about debian/README.maintenance ? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to write a good manpage ?
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:13:32AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Just to add one more opinion, I always write new man pages in POD and make > Perl do the hard work of converting them to *roff for me. (Of course, I'm > biased since I maintain Pod::Man.) I also tend to like the POD syntax for writing manpages. > It means a build dependency on Perl, but the POD syntax is very simple > and quick to learn. Not necessarily, you can store in the package the already built version of the manpage and document in debian/README.Debian-source what is needed to re-generate the manpage. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Managing Apt through Python - was Re: Managing Apt through Perl
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:06:04PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote: > >I was just wondering if there was a good way of using Apt using perl? > >Specifically I want to be able to check if packages are installed and > >install them through a Perl application. > Same question, but for Python? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache search apt python ... python-apt - Python interface to libapt-pkg ... Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Who sponsored the NMU of clustalw?
On lun, 2006-11-06 at 10:54 +0200, George Danchev wrote: > ... or use `who-uploads sourcepackage' to do the job for you. > p.s. who-uploads(1) is in the devscripts package. This is uber-cool! I really need to start reading the changelog of devscripts everytime a new version gets uploaded! :-) -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema? /\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: variables from shell output in makefile
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 04:04:48PM -0300, andremachado wrote: > I found the "$(shell command parms)" . > But it still leaving EXT_DIR empty. > Please, what am I doing wrong? try adding export SHELL=/bin/bash early in your makefile. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SVN snapshot versioning
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:39:30AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > Why bother with the date? 2.1~svn-r91 seems much more concise and > has the same information, really. Though you're right that the information is the same, a date is meaningful in spite of the knowledge of the revision control system (subversion in this case). The same can't be said for the SVN revision number. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SVN snapshot versioning
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 09:35:38AM +, Neil Williams wrote: > As commented elsewhere, normal release numbers do not have any date > component and you've still got the problem that multiple svn commits > are frequently made on the same day. The date, in this context, is just > misleading and would need to be a full UTC timestamp to have any real > meaning. The revision number is far more precise and just like a normal My feeling is you're kinda nitpicking here, but let me play your game :) Unless you, as a Debian packager, are packaging a CVS/SVN/... snapshot whose date is "today" this is a bogus problem. Indeed if the date timestamp is at least yesterday [1] the amount of commit occurred until that day can no longer change. Using both CVS and SVN you can checkout/update your working copy up to that date without any possible confusion. Cheers. [1] i.e. yesterday or earlier in the time line -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[OT] svn rollback
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 09:01:52PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > Also, in the (rare but can occur) event of a svn rollback, r91 is not > necessarily accurate after the fact,whereas a datestamp is. Uh? Is "rollback" (in the sense of "undoing" a commit) possible with SVN without manually fiddling in the repository at all? If this is *not* the case and you're meaning committing a patch undoing a past change, then the new commit will get a greater revision number. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: pict
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 03:00:07PM +0100, Matej Kosik wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pict". Have you read the OCaml packaging policy available in /usr/share/doc/ocaml/ocaml_packaging_policy.txt.gz (ocaml package)? Being a program implemented in OCaml it should obey to it. I'm Cc-ing the debian-ocaml-maint mailing list (the contact point for all maintainers of OCaml-related programs). People there (are supposed to :-)) have good knowledge of OCaml packaging issues and you can be probably more lucky in finding there a sponsor. Thanks for packaging pict! (which I guess is the same thing as "nomadic pict", am I wrong?) Cheers. PS fully quoting your post for the benefits of debian-ocaml-maint readers > * Package name: pict > * Version: 4.1.0-1 > * Upstream Authors: Benjamin C. Pierce > David N. Turner > * URL: > http://altair.dcs.elf.stuba.sk/~kosik/debian/pool/main/p/pict/pict_4.1.0-1.dsc > * Description: Compiler of the Pict programming language > Pict is a programming language in the ML tradition, > formed by adding high-level derived forms and powerful > static type system to a tiny core language. The core, > Milner's pi-calculus, is becoming popular as a theoretical > foundation for a broad class of concurrent applications. > The goal in Pict is to identify and support idioms that > arise naturally when these primitives are used to build > working programs---idioms such as basic data structures, > protocols for returning results, higher-order programming, > selective communication, and concurrent objects. The type > system integrates a number of features found in recent work > on theoretical foundations for typed object-oriented languages: > higher-order polymorphism, simple recursive data-types, subtyping, > and a useful partial type inference algorithm. > > > The package is lintian clean. > > The package is not linda clean > E: pict; Binary /usr/lib/pict/pict contains unneeded section comment. > E: pict; Binary /usr/lib/pict/src2pi contains unneeded section comment. > E: pict; Binary /usr/lib/pict/src2tex contains unneeded section comment. > E: pict; Binary /usr/lib/pict/pict is not stripped. > E: pict; Binary /usr/lib/pict/src2pi is not stripped. > E: pict; Binary /usr/lib/pict/src2tex is not stripped. > because > #256900: ocaml: Ocaml compiled programs cannot be stripped, hence either > don't work or violate policy > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=256900 > > It is possible to build the package in the pbuilder environment. > > Although the software exists already for some time, it was not yet > packaged for Debian. > > Regards, > -- > Matej Kosik -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: gtk-vim-syntax (new package)
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 02:06:10PM +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gtk-vim-syntax". Sorry for not seeing the initial ITP, but I object the package name. Can you please rename it to "vim-syntax-gtk"? Even though we (Debian Vim maintainers) haven't yet formally proposed a naming convention for Vim based packages I would like to in the near future, and I would like to have all vim related packages to start with "vim-" and syntax extensions to start with "vim-sintax-". Other questions on this package (sorry, but I'm busy these days and I haven't yet had the time to look at it): - is it worth to have it? how much is the size of the resulting .deb? have you considered shipping it as a patch for vim-scripts? (I'm not claiming it would be better that way, just that it would be better *if* the resulting package is small enough) - have you looked at the best-practices for packaging vim-scripts, in particular at providing vim-registry entries (I know, this is not yet documented as a "Vim packaging policy" or such and it's my fault, but please have a look at what vim-scripts and vim-latex-suite does and provide similar registry entries) - can you please request to be added to the pkg-vim project on alioth and check in your package to the corresponding repository so that your package is available where other vim related packages are? That said I'm willing to sponsor your package, but please have a look at my comments above and act accordingly where needed. Thanks for your packaging work! Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Prompt to install missing software?
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 02:17:15PM +1000, John Pye wrote: > Is there any way under Debian (and hopefully also Ubuntu) that I can > trigger gtk-debi or something like that when the user requests to use > the part of my program that depends on stuff they haven't installed yet? I don't think anything like that does exist, but I thank you for pointing it out: I think having something like that in Debian would be useful. Sure suggests/recommends are already out there for similar reasons, but they are for package managers and for human admins that manually install packages. Users might well not be aware of them or even of what they mean. So I agree that an agreed upon mechanism able to spawn a package manager instance to install the missing packages would be useful. Some points for open discussion on this: - we need a fallback in case the user does not have the needed privileges to install the packages. IMO something like "sorry, it seems you can't install the missing packages, please contact your local administration and ask him to install X, Y, and Z packages - we need to provide one instance for each environment we want it to work: the gksu solution mentioned in this thread might be ok for Gnome users but probably not for KDE/Xfce ones. Suggestions on what should be the corresponding "implementations" there? - we need a way to choose for the user among different package managers top-levels: apt-get/aptitude/synaptic/... Probably an update-alternatives like mechanism can be used? > What would be the best way of doing that from python, if such a thing > exists? So, no answer for this, but I hope in the future to be able to answer: "just run debian-install-missing X Y Z". Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Prompt to install missing software?
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 05:06:38PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I don't think anything like that does exist, but I thank you for Sorry, a better target for this discussion would have been -devel. I've reposted there my reply, please follow-up there if interested in the discussion. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mentors.debian.net reloading
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 04:45:03PM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: > BTW, I just found: > http://www.bononia.it/~zack/blog/posts/2007/07/python_debfile.html > There could be some interesting code to use. On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 08:33:00PM +0100, Christoph Haas wrote: > Cool, thanks for the link. It looks very powerful and hardly documented. That code has been integrated in the python-debian package since some months now; it's also already in testing. I consider it quite documented, but yes ... "only" in the most common Python: doc strings. In addition to that there are a couple of examples under /usr/share/doc/python-debian/examples/debfile/ (of course after installing "python-debian"). debfile has also been use extensively on all the .debs of the archive (by Cyril IIRC) failing only in a couple of cases for strange .debs. Feel free to ask directly if you have any other questions. /me going to update the above blog post mentioning where the code is now. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: automatically parseable debian/copyright
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:45:07PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Don't confuse it being mandatory with it being allowed. The format Full ack. In addition to that, before my last ping on the copyright proposal on -devel, I remember having gone through the original thread and I remember having not found any objection in the end. So, I would say that we actually have reached a consensus on that format. We are simply missing wide acceptance, but that would come with time ... and any package adopting the new format would help :) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Making mentors.debian.net a .org (was: proposed new pseudo-package 'debian-mentors' for handling sponsoring requests)
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:47:59PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> DSA is the team which makes a DNS CNAME record, or provides a hosting
> facility. In my interpretation they are not making facts by that. Making
> mentors.debian.net a .org makes the project official part of Debian,
> just like any other core team, e.g. ftp-master, security team, release
> team and so on. That's not something which should be decided without
> consensus among Debian Developers and, perhaps, a DPL which delegates
> some people to a "mentors task".
Leaving legal issues aside [1], I surely agree that turning mentors.d.o
into mentors.d.o is a worthwhile goal. In our eternal quest to have
enough contributors to keep up with Debian development, mentoring is a
fundamental tool. Giving even the tiniest impression that it is a 2nd
class citizen among Debian services is not good™.
But to do so there are several constraints. The first one is, of course,
getting into an agreement with DSA, as it is up to them to maintain the
*.debian.org DNS namespace. In this specific case this is related to [1]
and I hope we can find an agreement that make everybody happy, and free
of legal risks for all involved parties.
Regarding delegation, it can be done, but it is not necessarily a
requirement. For many technical services we simply have informal teams
that are in charge of maintaining the service. I don't see why the
"mentors task" can't simply be such a team as, say, the QA team that
currently maintains services like the PTS or DDPO.
(There are some advantages with delegations, such as clarifying
Constitution-wise stuff like why some DDs are in some *nix groups and
some others are not. But that comes with important disadvantages, such
as institutionalizing die hard powers we should live without in most
cases. Also, if we opt for delegations, then only the DPL can change
team composition and that can easily become a barrier for contributing
to service maintenance.)
Cheers.
[1] which are being discussed in a separate sub-thread, to which I'll
come back given that I've sought in the past very similar legal
advice for Debian's "PPA" [2]
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/06/msg0.html
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: proposed new pseudo-package 'debian-mentors' for handling sponsoring requests
[ please Cc:-me on replies if you want to get my attention, I'm not
subscribed to -mentors ]
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:26:49 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Second concern i have here is that (AFAIK) everyone can upload
> everything to mentors.debian.net. Which would mean we then would/could
> distribute non-distribiteable material under the debian.org
> domain. How can this issue be resolved?
I've sought legal advice for a similar issue ~6 months ago, on behalf of
ftp-masters to study the feasibility of so called PPA (for "Personal
Package Archive") in Debian. I've briefly reported back then [1] that it
can be done even without a "NEW queue"-like bottleneck. To that end, a
couple of conditions shall be met:
a) we have a well-advertised contact point that copyright owners can
email to request take down of (allegedly) unauthorizedly distributed
content + someone behind it that react quickly (as in: a couple of
days) if/when needed
b) the [ mentors.d.o ] service is opt-in, and uploaders must accept some
"terms of use" before getting access to it. The terms essentially say
uploaders take responsibility for the content they're uploading
The above is in the context of US copyright law. The "feature" of DMCA
the two conditions exploit is the so called "safe harbor", already
mentioned by Michael van der Kolff in this thread [2].
To make it real, however, we should write proper terms of use and
preferably have SPI lawyers review them. As we're going to need a very
similar version of it for PPA, getting one for mentors.d.o won't be a
big deal.
Would this be enough to settle the second concern of yours?
If so, I'll be happy to look into this with SPI lawyers.
Let me know,
Cheers.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/06/msg0.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/01/msg00508.html
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
call for volunteers: Debian liaisons for Google Code-In
[ Mail-Followup-To: -project ]
TL;DR: I'm looking for volunteers that will act as Debian Project
liaisons (or "admins") for the Google Code In initiative [1]. Deadline
for project applications is November 1st; we'll miss it unless we have
the volunteers before that date. Feel free to volunteer either on
-project or by mailing me at leader@d.o.
---
The Google Code In (GCI) initiative [1] is a contest organized by Google
that encourages student participation into Free Software
projects. Compared to the more famous Google Summer of Code (GSOC)
initiative [2], GCI focuses on smaller tasks.
[1] http://code.google.com/gci
[2] http://code.google.com/soc
According to feedback I've received from the Debian liaisons from last
year GCI (thanks a lot, Ana!), GCI students are quite likely to remain
involved into Debian, with higher percentages than GSOC. That outcome is
really valuable for our project.
Additionally, we could use the chance of initiatives like GCI to work on
ways to maintain a list of Debian "easy hacks". As recently shown by the
LibreOffice example, such lists can be very effective in attracting new
contributors to a Free Software project. We have tried in the past
similar initiatives using "gift" tags [3,4], but that has not really
worked out. I think we should try again and make it work, possibly via
different/new technical means.
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/12/msg00679.html
[4]
http://upsilon.cc/~zack/blog/posts/2008/08/PTS_integrated_with_mentors_and_gifts/
For all the above reasons, I'm calling for volunteers willing to act as
GCI admins. The task / requirements are about:
- having time to devote to the task from the beginning of November to
the beginning of January
- calling for / organizing ways to collect Debian "easy hacks", that
will be given out as GCI tasks
- interacting with the students that will take part in GCI
Background material and feedback/proposals on how to make it work
properly in Debian can be found in a slide deck by Ana [5].
[5] http://penta.debconf.org/dc11_schedule/attachments/189_google-code-in.pdf
The deadline for *project* applications in GCI is November 1st. We'll
need to have volunteers before that date, as it'd be pointless to apply
if we aren't sure Debian can participate properly in GCI. According to
feedback from past admins, it'd be wise to have at least 3 volunteers
before deciding to apply.
Many thanks in advance!,
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: How to handle config file that has changed names
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 05:25:35PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > You could conditionally move the existing configuration file in the > preinst to the new location. Thanks for your examplese. What about adding something similar to the "best packaging practice" section of the debian developer reference? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/zack/ " I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant! " -- G.Romney signature.asc Description: Digital signature
renaming source package
Upstream maintainership of a package of mine changed from the old author to a new one. New upstream maintainer decided to change the source name of the package and thus the tarball name. How can I handle such a change? The simplest approach seems to be to keep the currend debian source package name and just release a "new upstream release" version of the package. Actually I haven't yet tried and I don't know if uupdate permits that, but in case it doesn't I can simply rename the tarball. The other approach is to ask for removal of the old source package and upload a new one which generates the same binary packages. This seems to be the best approach but I'm a bit scared about the transition phase ... would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is removed? TIA, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: renaming source package
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is > > removed? > Yes. BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Previous upstream author used timestamp based versioning with last version 20040120 while new upstream author has actually has a last version 1.3.3. Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue? TIA, Cheers -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
garbage during upload, dput wont work
I was uploading a package to the ftp-master queue, during the upload I lost network connectivity and the upload has been interrupted after having uploaded the .dsc and (partially) the .orig.tar.gz. Now I'm unable to perform the upload since dput complains: Error during ftp transfer of ... probably because it can't overwrite a file on the ftp server. I've solved the problem for the .dsc bumping the debian version of the package but I can't bump the version of the .orig.tar.gz? Hints? TIA -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: garbage during upload, dput wont work
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 01:07:48PM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > Hints? > In the same vein as Andreas, but as apprentice dput comaintainer with the > inevitable advertisement: Thanks! (to Andreas as well). I've just used dcut, I hope it will work :) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
retriggering the building of a package on all archs
I'm the maintainer of two packages, say A and B. B build depends on A, i uploaded a bugged version of A, which inhibit building of B. Now I've fixed the problem, but B needs to be rebuilt on all architectures. Is there a single person/email address I can ask for rebuilding package B on all archs? Usually I send mail to the interested port list, but I don't want to spam each debian-arch mailing list. I can also reupload a new version of B, but it would be inappropriate since nothing changed in that package. TIA, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: retriggering the building of a package on all archs
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 06:12:27PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > I think it's the preferred method, though. Certainly I've had bugs filed on > my packages to upload a new version so that the package gets rebuilt against > a new ABI. Beware that my package B has not been built against the wrong library since bug in package A completely inhibit succesfull builds of B. Thanks both to Matthew and Steve, I will go for an upload. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
uploading packages built on an amd64 box inside ia32 chroot
The machine I used to create debian packages ceased to work last week. The only machine I have ATM to do debian work is an amd64 box with the "unofficial" port of debian. I've set up an ia32 chroot in which I set up an i386 debian unstable. Are there any problem in uploading packages built inside that chroot? The only strange thing I notice on binaries built there is that ldd reports a dynamic dependency on "linux-gate.so.1" which is not there for binaries build elsewhere. Thanks in advance to all mentors. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: making backport debs with dpkg-buildpackage
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 07:37:31PM +1200, Kai-Cheung Leung wrote: > I have both GCC 4.0 and GCC 3.3.5 installed. GCC 4.0 is intended for > future distributions and GCC 3.3.5 is intended for backport to sarge. > When I invoke dpkg-buildpackage to build my debs, how can I specify which > compiler and which libstdc++ libraries dpkg-buildpackage to use? I suggest to use pbuilder with a sarge chroot in which you use both apt repositories of the official sarge distribution _and_ an apt repository of yours with packages already backported. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
upload to master or ftp-master
Hi All,
I'm a new maintainer and I have a doubt on the target for the upload.
On the developers reference I saw as a target for my upload
ftp-master.debian.org in the dir /org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/, but
dupload (from unstable, upgraded every day till now) have as standard
target named "master": master.debian.org in the dir
/home/Debian/ftp/private/project/Incoming/.
Which destination should I better use ?
And why master.debian.org is not mentioned in the developers reference ?
- or -
And why ftp-master.debian.org is not present in /etc/dupload.conf ?
TIA
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
e-mail address changed
I've changed my e-mail address, so my last upload of a package seems to
be a NMU, how I fix the problem ?
This is the line reported in the last changes file, the second is my new
e-mail address:
Maintainer: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Stefano Zacchiroli (Zack) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Have I to upload the whole bundle of packages (including the source) to
fix this misunderstanding ?
TIA
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
Re: e-mail address changed
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 10:31:24PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> No, the only thing that is different when an upload seems to be a NMU is,
> that the bugs you close in the changelog are only markd as "fixed" instead
> of getting closed. All you have to do is to close these bugs manually.
ok, but I also want know how to change the first e-mail address given
when I do the package, so that this problem does not come back when I do
the next upload.
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
Re: e-mail address changed
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 02:30:25PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 10:42:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > ok, but I also want know how to change the first e-mail address given
> > when I do the package, so that this problem does not come back when I do
> > the next upload.
>
> make sure the email address in debian/control is the same as that in
> debian/changelog
ok, just remain only a little thing ...
on the page www.debian.org/devel/people my e-mail address is the old
one.
How I may change that address in the new one ?
Bye
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
upstream new version
I've to build a new package against a new upstream version released by the upstream author of one of my packages. What I have to do to merge the new upstream version in the old one debianized source tree ? Have I to unpack the new orig file and copy in it the old debian/ dir ? TIA Bye -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" pgp4rn3hKbFA2.pgp Description: PGP signature
developping of deb and clean dpkg database
During the development of a new deb package, my dpkg database is going to increase its dirty-level. Packages that are being developped got installed and deinstalled, change names, change sections and so on... The result ? My dpkg database contains info about many packages that does not exists or that does not belong to the right section. Is there a clean way to remove info related to some packages ? Currently my solution is to manually edit /var/lib/dpkg/* files, but I wonder about the existence of some cleaner way to do it. TIA -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" pgpRQN1kQi84j.pgp Description: PGP signature
DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?
I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
debian/rules.
Some user report me the impossibility of build the same package from the
sources on a debian potato.
The compilation fail on dh_clean that right report an error.
If I turn DH_COMPAT to 2 all compile correctly even on a potato.
So, why (and when) I have to use DH_COMPAT=3 ?
Tnx
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> explain the problem of building on a potato machine.
If i want to do a package that can be compiled even on a potato machine,
what I have to do ?
I think about using DH_COMPAT=2 and all the old tools (like
dh_installmanpages instead of dh_installman and so on).
Is something wrong in this approach ?
Exists a way to tell dh_make to use the old tools ?
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
pgpXkKRc4roYv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
uupdate and .rej files
As some of you told me, I try to use uupdate with new upstream release.
I know that uupdate try to apply the diff.gz patches to the new upstream
versione and when I can't do it cleanly creates a .rej file.
I can't understand what the .rej files really are.
It seems to me that the corrisponding file (without .rej extensione) is
not the origianl upstream version of the file nor the previous version
one.
And also, more important, what I have to do with a .rej file ?
I guess that I have to integrate this file with the corrisponding file
but I can't understand exactly what I have to look for ...
Moreover, the package seems to work correctly even if I ignore the
existence of .rej file, is it possible ?
Help needed
TIA
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
pgpKFPfUuYgVT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
m68k compilation, account needed ?
I've fixed a porting bug on one of my package (ocaml-findlib). The bug caused a compilation failure on m68k architectures. Before uploading the new version and closing the bug I want to be sure that the bug is fixed, but I don't have a m68k machine on which try the compilation. May I request an account on kullervo for compilation test ? -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open"
purging bug of removed package
I have a pending bug on an old package that does not yet exists in debian archive. What I have to do ? Have I to close the bug signalling that the package has been removed from debian or have I to inform someone that the packge is defunct ? -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" pgpoevAjzFcdx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: purging bug of removed package
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 05:12:52PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > I have a pending bug on an old package that does not yet exists in > > debian archive. > Give us more exact information about which packages are included. > There's no general rule... OK, the package is "gtkmathview" that does not loger exists cause it have been replaced by three "libgtkmathview-*" packages. There is a bug pending on gtkmathview regarding a missing build-dep, the bug is outstanding since 64 days ago. -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" pgp2KK3yX5rMw.pgp Description: PGP signature
buildd building environment
I know a little about buildd, but I guess that it try to build a package and it if fail someone take its logs and submit a bug report. At the end of the build process I guess that the build environment is totally cleaned and that survive only a build log. Is it possible to have access to a snapshot of the build environment ? I asked this cause I receive a bug report, but I need to better know the situation in which the failure occured to find and solve the bug. Tnx -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" pgpKsI4U5y9lC.pgp Description: PGP signature
forwarding bugs
I have forwarded a bug to an upstream maintainer doing the following: mail to the upstream maintainter cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc to the bug reporter I have also received a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that told me that the bug has been signed as forwarded. But on my personal bugs page (bugs.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]) the bug is still marker as outstanding. Is this a delay or I have to do somethin else mailin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? TIA, cheers -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open"
Re: forwarding bugs
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:49:38PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> It would help if you told us the bug number you are talking about.
the bug is #96254, package xstr.
and this is the mail that i received after forwarding the bug:
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 05:18:34 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Bug#96252: marked as forwarded (netstring_0.9.3-1 build
failure on m68k)
Your message dated Tue, 22 May 2001 12:05:34 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
has caused the Debian Bug report #96252,
regarding netstring_0.9.3-1 build failure on m68k
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) Gerd Stolpmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
but at http://bugs.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] i found:
Serious policy violations - outstanding
(A list of all such bugs used to be available).
* #96254: xstr_0.2-1 build failure on m68k
Package: xstr; Severity: serious; Reported by: Rick Younie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 19 days old.
TIA,
cheers.
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
pgpMn4Gwyjy1F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: forwarding bugs
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 06:51:42PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:49:38PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > It would help if you told us the bug number you are talking about.
>
> the bug is #96254, package xstr.
oops, i made a mistake on the bug number, really sorry.
My bug is 96254 and i sent mail to 96252.
Sorry again
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
pgpCx1Ofb0yCN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
porting problem and how to request help
Some weeks ago I received Bug#96254 on one of my package: ocaml-xstr, the problem is a build failure on a m68k machine. The reason is that a package needed in ocaml-xstr compilation named ocaml-findlib, does not work well on a m68k architecture. I forwarded the problem to the upstream author and I told me that he does not like to solve architecture specific problem, OTOH I do not have time and knowledge to debug problems on m68k arch. How can I solve the problem? May I ask for help on debian-devel or on debian-m68k ML? Cause the problem is related to another package, may I close the bug on ocaml-xstr and fill a new one against ocaml-findlib? TIA, cheers. -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" pgp6uWyJSiDdK.pgp Description: PGP signature
arch disparity and freeze
May exists in freezed distribution (and later in stable) a package that isn't available on a architecture? Tnx, cheers. -- Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgpIY79Zx8XET.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: arch disparity and freeze
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 06:47:05PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > If it's completely unavailable, that's fine (unless it being unavailable ok > If it's out of date, that will keep it out of testing. what does "out of date" mean in this contest? Cheers -- Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgpkR8ndB8n0L.pgp Description: PGP signature
official debian logo on visiting card
I want make my own visiting cards (I'm not sure on the term 'visiting card', I hope is the right translation of the italian term 'biglietto da visita') and I want put in it the official debian logo, the bottle one. From the logos page: Permission has been given to use the official logo on clothing (shirts, hats, etc) as long as they are made by a Debian developer and not sold for profit. I'm a debian developer, does this permission extends also on my own visiting cards? Can I use the official debian logo? TIA, cheers. -- Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgpb5C5SijrMq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: official debian logo on visiting card
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 09:53:56AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > I have seen business cards from other developers who did use the logo. I > think cards fall into the same category as clothing; if you're a Debian > developer and it's not for profit, I think it's safe to use it. However, if > you're going to use these cards in professional dealings, I wouldn't use the > logo without getting permission first. I'm going to use the cards only to distribute my fingerprint to others at the LSM ... so, from your words, I think there aren't problems at all. Tnx mentor :-) -- Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgpSpm4flWo5Z.pgp Description: PGP signature
proud maintainer that do no want NUM :-)
Hi mentors,
I've uploaded one of my package with the wrong gpg uid ("Stefano
(Zack) Zacchiroli" instead of "Stefano Zacchiroli" :-P), so the uploaded
have been marked as NMU, is it possibile to change this status?
I've tried to reupload the package but seems to me that is not possilbe
cause I receive an error that saids the impossibility of overwrite a
package in the distribution.
I know that is a really silly question, but I really dislike "fixed in
NMU" on my own bug pages :-)))
Cheers.
--
Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy
- Information wants to be Open -
pgp7bkCgJbT8O.pgp
Description: PGP signature
dangling symlinks in upstream archive
Hi mentors, I've an upstream archive which contains two dangling symlinks and I obviously want them not to be part of the final binary package, whick is the best solution? I try to remove them but the .diff.gz seems to not consider this fact, so when I extract the debianized source tree the two links are already present; I can put a 'rm' command in debian/rules but I think that is not a "good" solution ... Hint? -- Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgp5At8cMZCHf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dangling symlinks in upstream archive
On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 09:22:38PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Why do you need to remove them? As long as they are not installed > into the binary package it is not a problem. right! but these files resides in an example dir that is installed as whole and I don't wont to specify on a file by file basis which file have to be installed ... -- Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgp7DF2VyVvxz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dangling symlinks in upstream archive
On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 10:28:11AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > for i in debian/tmp/...examples/* ; do [ -r "$i" ] && rm -f "$i" ; done > That might do it... well, good hint! (inverting the test obviously or I remove all 'good' files ...) Tnx Cheers -- Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgpVgQRG4Xdjo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dangling symlinks in upstream archive
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 08:30:36AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > right! but these files resides in an example dir that is installed as > > whole and I don't wont to specify on a file by file basis which file > > have to be installed ... > > OK.. so install the files and then remove them from debian/package/ > (or debian/tmp/) afterwards. yep, this is what I want to do, but I don't want to add "rm file1 file2" in debian/rules, is really a poor solution. I have adopted the previously posted solution (with "test ! -r") and seems to me an elegant solution. Tnx to all. -- Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgpROfLDTr2r7.pgp Description: PGP signature
oops I've deleted some hidden file from incoming
I've erroniously deleted some file from /org/ftp.debian.org/incoming on auric while I'm trying to remove other files. The file I've removed are: /org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/ocaml-xstr_0.2-3_arm.deb /org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/ocaml-xstr_0.2-3_ia64.deb /org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/ocaml-xstr_0.2-3_sparc.deb /org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/xstr_0.2-3_arm.changes /org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/xstr_0.2-3_ia64.changes /org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/xstr_0.2-3_sparc.changes Seems to me that this files are rebuilt of my package for other architectures (I built the originals for i386 arch), does this deletion cause package not to be available on arm, ia64 and sparc archs? Have I to reupload the package or the built daemon will rebuild automagically the files? Sorry but, why with 'ls -al' those files wasn't visible? Tnx, cheers. -- Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgpuaAAHi4tQ2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: oops I've deleted some hidden file from incoming
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 11:59:32AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Probably because they were uploaded between the time you did ls > and the time you did the rm. what about the build daemon? does it retry to build the packages or not? -- Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgpjYxZCRs8Bh.pgp Description: PGP signature
renaming source package
Upstream maintainership of a package of mine changed from the old author to a new one. New upstream maintainer decided to change the source name of the package and thus the tarball name. How can I handle such a change? The simplest approach seems to be to keep the currend debian source package name and just release a "new upstream release" version of the package. Actually I haven't yet tried and I don't know if uupdate permits that, but in case it doesn't I can simply rename the tarball. The other approach is to ask for removal of the old source package and upload a new one which generates the same binary packages. This seems to be the best approach but I'm a bit scared about the transition phase ... would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is removed? TIA, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: renaming source package
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is > > removed? > Yes. BTW I've just discovered another problem in this renaming. Previous upstream author used timestamp based versioning with last version 20040120 while new upstream author has actually has a last version 1.3.3. Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue? TIA, Cheers -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
garbage during upload, dput wont work
I was uploading a package to the ftp-master queue, during the upload I lost network connectivity and the upload has been interrupted after having uploaded the .dsc and (partially) the .orig.tar.gz. Now I'm unable to perform the upload since dput complains: Error during ftp transfer of ... probably because it can't overwrite a file on the ftp server. I've solved the problem for the .dsc bumping the debian version of the package but I can't bump the version of the .orig.tar.gz? Hints? TIA -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: garbage during upload, dput wont work
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 01:07:48PM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > Hints? > In the same vein as Andreas, but as apprentice dput comaintainer with the > inevitable advertisement: Thanks! (to Andreas as well). I've just used dcut, I hope it will work :) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
retriggering the building of a package on all archs
I'm the maintainer of two packages, say A and B. B build depends on A, i uploaded a bugged version of A, which inhibit building of B. Now I've fixed the problem, but B needs to be rebuilt on all architectures. Is there a single person/email address I can ask for rebuilding package B on all archs? Usually I send mail to the interested port list, but I don't want to spam each debian-arch mailing list. I can also reupload a new version of B, but it would be inappropriate since nothing changed in that package. TIA, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: retriggering the building of a package on all archs
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 06:12:27PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > I think it's the preferred method, though. Certainly I've had bugs filed on > my packages to upload a new version so that the package gets rebuilt against > a new ABI. Beware that my package B has not been built against the wrong library since bug in package A completely inhibit succesfull builds of B. Thanks both to Matthew and Steve, I will go for an upload. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Build-Depend on virtual packages
[ Mail-Followup-To: set to debian-mentors only ] On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:57:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > You can't Build-Depend on virtual packages. Ok, time to settle down this issue. We do, all ocaml packages build depends on ocaml-3.08.3 a virtual package provided by ocaml. What's the problem with that? It has worked properly for two years or so. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Build-Depend on virtual packages
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:40:51PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > apt-get complains if there is more than one source of the provides > (even two sources with the same name/version). sbuild then picks the > first choice apt lists for the provides which is non deterministic and > strongly discouraged. This is never the case for ocaml, since we always have only one package providing ocaml-. > As I said in the past this needs a real metapackage that then depends > on the actual ocaml package. Agreed, this would be an alternative solution and probably better wrt possible bugs in sbuild/apt. But still there's no real problem ATM with our solution, thus please stop asserting statements like "You can't Build-Depend on virtual packages". Thanks. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Build-Depend on virtual packages
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:09:14AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > No you don't. You have one per entry in the sources.list. As I said > even the same version can make apt-get build-dep fail. Two versions, > like when you just uploaded a new one that a local mirror doesn't have > yet or users with stable/testing/unstable entries, makes apt always fail. I made some test with current unstable apt and "apt-get build-dep". I set up a local repository of packages. First I tried to store there a version of ocaml (providing the virtual package on which several other packages build depend on) greater than that in unstable. In that case apt-get build-dep indeed fails. Then I tried to store in the repository the same version of ocaml than that in unstable. In this case apt-get build-dep work properly. Summarizing: I see no problem with autobuilders and virtual build-dependencies since they're supposed to be configured with just unstable repositories. However, to be kind to users it would be better to do as you suggest (a real metapackage) so that they can happily live with an additional local apt repository. Do you know if there are plans to fix this behaviour in future versions of apt? The expected behaviour for it should be to choose the greater version if several version of a single package provide a virtual package. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
upload to master or ftp-master
Hi All,
I'm a new maintainer and I have a doubt on the target for the upload.
On the developers reference I saw as a target for my upload
ftp-master.debian.org in the dir /org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/, but
dupload (from unstable, upgraded every day till now) have as standard
target named "master": master.debian.org in the dir
/home/Debian/ftp/private/project/Incoming/.
Which destination should I better use ?
And why master.debian.org is not mentioned in the developers reference ?
- or -
And why ftp-master.debian.org is not present in /etc/dupload.conf ?
TIA
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e-mail address changed
I've changed my e-mail address, so my last upload of a package seems to
be a NMU, how I fix the problem ?
This is the line reported in the last changes file, the second is my new
e-mail address:
Maintainer: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Stefano Zacchiroli (Zack) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Have I to upload the whole bundle of packages (including the source) to
fix this misunderstanding ?
TIA
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: e-mail address changed
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 10:31:24PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> No, the only thing that is different when an upload seems to be a NMU is,
> that the bugs you close in the changelog are only markd as "fixed" instead
> of getting closed. All you have to do is to close these bugs manually.
ok, but I also want know how to change the first e-mail address given
when I do the package, so that this problem does not come back when I do
the next upload.
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: e-mail address changed
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 02:30:25PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 10:42:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > ok, but I also want know how to change the first e-mail address given
> > when I do the package, so that this problem does not come back when I do
> > the next upload.
>
> make sure the email address in debian/control is the same as that in
> debian/changelog
ok, just remain only a little thing ...
on the page www.debian.org/devel/people my e-mail address is the old
one.
How I may change that address in the new one ?
Bye
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
upstream new version
I've to build a new package against a new upstream version released by the upstream author of one of my packages. What I have to do to merge the new upstream version in the old one debianized source tree ? Have I to unpack the new orig file and copy in it the old debian/ dir ? TIA Bye -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" PGP signature
developping of deb and clean dpkg database
During the development of a new deb package, my dpkg database is going to increase its dirty-level. Packages that are being developped got installed and deinstalled, change names, change sections and so on... The result ? My dpkg database contains info about many packages that does not exists or that does not belong to the right section. Is there a clean way to remove info related to some packages ? Currently my solution is to manually edit /var/lib/dpkg/* files, but I wonder about the existence of some cleaner way to do it. TIA -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" PGP signature
DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?
I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
debian/rules.
Some user report me the impossibility of build the same package from the
sources on a debian potato.
The compilation fail on dh_clean that right report an error.
If I turn DH_COMPAT to 2 all compile correctly even on a potato.
So, why (and when) I have to use DH_COMPAT=3 ?
Tnx
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> explain the problem of building on a potato machine.
If i want to do a package that can be compiled even on a potato machine,
what I have to do ?
I think about using DH_COMPAT=2 and all the old tools (like
dh_installmanpages instead of dh_installman and so on).
Is something wrong in this approach ?
Exists a way to tell dh_make to use the old tools ?
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
PGP signature
uupdate and .rej files
As some of you told me, I try to use uupdate with new upstream release.
I know that uupdate try to apply the diff.gz patches to the new upstream
versione and when I can't do it cleanly creates a .rej file.
I can't understand what the .rej files really are.
It seems to me that the corrisponding file (without .rej extensione) is
not the origianl upstream version of the file nor the previous version
one.
And also, more important, what I have to do with a .rej file ?
I guess that I have to integrate this file with the corrisponding file
but I can't understand exactly what I have to look for ...
Moreover, the package seems to work correctly even if I ignore the
existence of .rej file, is it possible ?
Help needed
TIA
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
PGP signature
m68k compilation, account needed ?
I've fixed a porting bug on one of my package (ocaml-findlib). The bug caused a compilation failure on m68k architectures. Before uploading the new version and closing the bug I want to be sure that the bug is fixed, but I don't have a m68k machine on which try the compilation. May I request an account on kullervo for compilation test ? -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
purging bug of removed package
I have a pending bug on an old package that does not yet exists in debian archive. What I have to do ? Have I to close the bug signalling that the package has been removed from debian or have I to inform someone that the packge is defunct ? -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" PGP signature
Re: purging bug of removed package
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 05:12:52PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > I have a pending bug on an old package that does not yet exists in > > debian archive. > Give us more exact information about which packages are included. > There's no general rule... OK, the package is "gtkmathview" that does not loger exists cause it have been replaced by three "libgtkmathview-*" packages. There is a bug pending on gtkmathview regarding a missing build-dep, the bug is outstanding since 64 days ago. -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" PGP signature
buildd building environment
I know a little about buildd, but I guess that it try to build a package and it if fail someone take its logs and submit a bug report. At the end of the build process I guess that the build environment is totally cleaned and that survive only a build log. Is it possible to have access to a snapshot of the build environment ? I asked this cause I receive a bug report, but I need to better know the situation in which the failure occured to find and solve the bug. Tnx -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" PGP signature
forwarding bugs
I have forwarded a bug to an upstream maintainer doing the following: mail to the upstream maintainter cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc to the bug reporter I have also received a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that told me that the bug has been signed as forwarded. But on my personal bugs page ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) the bug is still marker as outstanding. Is this a delay or I have to do somethin else mailin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? TIA, cheers -- - Zack - Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134) "Information wants to be Open" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: forwarding bugs
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:49:38PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> It would help if you told us the bug number you are talking about.
the bug is #96254, package xstr.
and this is the mail that i received after forwarding the bug:
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 05:18:34 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Bug#96252: marked as forwarded (netstring_0.9.3-1 build
failure on m68k)
Your message dated Tue, 22 May 2001 12:05:34 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
has caused the Debian Bug report #96252,
regarding netstring_0.9.3-1 build failure on m68k
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) Gerd Stolpmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
but at http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] i found:
Serious policy violations - outstanding
(A list of all such bugs used to be available).
* #96254: xstr_0.2-1 build failure on m68k
Package: xstr; Severity: serious; Reported by: Rick Younie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 19 days old.
TIA,
cheers.
--
- Zack -
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"
PGP signature
