Well, after a lot of fiddling and hacking and threatening of dpkg, I finally
managed to get libelf compiling with 2.1.1.0 compliant sources. Before I
upload it, though, I want a few things cleared up:
1) Should I rename the package to "libelf0" (Replaces: and Conflicts: libelf)
in the same
Package: ldso
Version: 1.8.2-1
I've recently had problems linking programs non-statically with (e.g.) the
X11 libraries, etc. Static libraries are fine, shared have problems. Upon
investigation, and discussion with a friend, it appears that ld cannot find
files of the form:
libfoo.so.1
libfo
I've received a few emails since I took over vim, asking if vim 4.2
has yet been packaged in debian format. The stock response has been
that, since 4.2 introduced a condition - "distribute vim on a CD-ROM,
and you should/must send me a copy of that CD-ROM" - I decided not to.
Would it perhaps be r
It didn't core dump on me, but it _did_ start going into an infinite
loop when the xterm reached around 180 columns. On investigation, the
problem appears to be the typedef:
typedef string char[160];
If the xterm is wider than around 160 characters, overruns start to
occur. This is Not a Good
I've finally got around to doing these. I'm not entirely sure that
libelf belongs in devel, but since nobody has responded to my queries
on this matter... shrug. Bug me if I'm wrong.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Date: 23 Aug 96 11:07 UT
Format: 1.6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: Low
Maint
[snipped]
> Urgency: Low
^^^
Where a security fix is involved, shouldn't the urgency be a little bit
higher than "low"? (especially where the problem affects many systems.)
Ok, I've fiddled around, and have reached the stage where I can upload
libelf to master. The one question I have is: should it go into contrib,
or devel? Currently, the library is considered to be in alpha stages -
it's definitely usable, but there you are.
I seem to recall that alpha stuff should
> Package: base
> Version: 1.1.0-14
>
> the:
> makedev idsn$no c 45 $no $system
> makedev idsnctrl$no c 45 `math 64 + $no` $system
> should read:
> makedev idsn$no c 45 $no $system
>
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In fact it would be nice if this message didn't go to you twice, but
> > I don't see any easy way to avoid this, short of writing more
> > functionality into the list manager.
>
> I may have already said this, but for those interested, gnus will
>
Michael Meskes wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > No, because packages which depend on contrib packages must go in
> > contrib too.
>
> Hmm, that wasn't what was said a while ago when we moved xforms.
>
> I'd like to ask the other developers what they think. While I see th elogic
> behind your appr
> The problem with this approach is that it breaks everything that assumes
> that make is the GNU make - for instance, the kernel. And probably several
> debian.rules files.
It would probably be a fair assumption to say that make, under Linux, is
GNU make: the average user would have this inst
Another one that I forgot to mention the new maintainer in...oh, well,
put it down to a late night. :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Date: 03 Aug 96 09:37 UT
Format: 1.6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: Low
Maintainer: Stuart Lamble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Source: zip
Version: 2.01-13
Binary: zi
Hopefully, this will be the last modifications made to vim 3.0 - version
4.2 is out (with restrictions on distribution on CDs), and 4.3 is due in
a few weeks (without those restrictions). I'll be upgrading the sources
to 4.3 when it's released.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Date: 02 Aug 96 0
Hmm. Forgot to mention that there's a new maintainer. Oh, well.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Date: 03 Aug 96 09:31 UT
Format: 1.6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: Low
Maintainer: Stuart Lamble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Source: unzip
Version: 5.12-13
Binary: unzip
Architecture: i386 source
Descript
Package: dchanges
Version: 3.4
If dchanges finds an old style file name, it gives the following messages:
Deb file ok: libelf-dev_0.5.2-1_i386.deb
Deb file ok: libelf_0.5.2-1_i386.deb
WARNING: old style file name: libelf-0.5.2-1.tar.gz
should be: libelf_0.5.2-1.deb
WARNING: old style f
> Mr Stuart Lamble writes:
> >annoyed that if I want support for my W32p (revision A), I have to go
> >to 3.1.2E - and it's not available for Debian. Net result: either I
> >have proper support for my card, and can't install new X-based packages
> >(dpkg ba
llucius wrote:
> Actually, I've not gotten to "The Next Step" yet anyway. I finally bit
> the bullet and downloaded XFree86 (whew!), compiled it, and am now going
> through all the X related packages.
Speaking of X, as a member of the beta team (XFree86), I have access to
the source code for th
17 matches
Mail list logo
