Re: binutils-gold and symbols files

Michael Biebl wrote: > As I received a couple of bug reports today about packages FTBFS, I > installed binutils-gold and tried to compile a few of my packages with it. > > What I noticed is, that every package with symbols file, produced a lintian > error, as binutils-gold added new symbols, the

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

Frank Lin PIAT dijo [Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:47:52PM +0100]: > Exemple 2: > > File: foo.c > > License: GPL-2 > > Binary-Package: foo > > > > File: doc/info/* > > License: GFDL-NON-FREE > > Binary-Package: foo-doc-is-non-free > The source package produces both a free and non-free package. > > Thi

Re: Upstart on kFreeBSD? [was: The future of the boot system in Debian]

On 9/5/09, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > The future of the boot system in Debian > === ... body omitted; see ... > Petter Reinholdtsen, Kel Modderman, Armin Berres > Thanks for the informative announcement. I am curious about

Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 04:39:06PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 10:21:48AM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: > > Okay, I understand. Now, I see two ways actually to solve this. > > > > 1. If we have a generic location for packages to drop their > >html/php/whatever fil

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

Le Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 03:23:22PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm a écrit : > > I still see a problem with the upgrade path for existing installations. > I might be wrong but I think the most difficult cases are very custom > setups with lots of changes by the local admin. I'm thinking of e.g. > webmail.do

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

Le Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:47:52PM +0100, Frank Lin PIAT a écrit : > > Exemple 1: > > File: doc/info/* > > License: GFDL-NON-FREE > > Binary-Package: none > The package contains a file covered by a not-so-free license, but > that file isn't used to build the binary file. And the file isn't > shipp

Re: common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 06:53:32PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06 2009, The Fungi wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 01:11:47PM +0100, Harald Braumann wrote: > >> /debian/ seems to be the de facto standard for Debian archives. So I > >> guess it wouldn't be such a good idea to u

Re: Upstart on kFreeBSD? [was: The future of the boot system in Debian]

Hi! On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 14:00:23 +, Alan Jenkins wrote: > On 9/5/09, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > change the init.d script > > handling to treat upstart jobs as init.d scripts, to provide an > > alternative for architectures lacking upstart support > I read this as a euphemism for non-li

Re: binutils-gold and symbols files

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009, Peter Fritzsche wrote: > The output of `ld -v 2` is "GNU gold (GNU Binutils for Debian 2.20) 1.9". So > it will catch the 1.9 here and just say "hey, i am sure that you are > evil" > which is of course wrong. So auto* stuff must be updated here. I will create > a > bug

Re: Upstart on kFreeBSD? [was: The future of the boot system in Debian]

On 11/7/09, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 14:00:23 +, Alan Jenkins wrote: >> On 9/5/09, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: >> > change the init.d script >> > handling to treat upstart jobs as init.d scripts, to provide an >> > alternative for architectures lacking upstart suppo

Re: binutils-gold and symbols files

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009, Peter Fritzsche wrote: > > The output of `ld -v 2` is "GNU gold (GNU Binutils for Debian 2.20) 1.9". > > So it will catch the 1.9 here and just say "hey, i am sure that you are > > evil" which is of course wrong. So auto* stuff must be u

Re: binutils-gold and symbols files

Peter Fritzsche wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009, Peter Fritzsche wrote: > > > The output of `ld -v 2` is "GNU gold (GNU Binutils for Debian 2.20) > > > 1.9". So it will catch the 1.9 here and just say "hey, i am sure that > > > you are evil" which is of cours

Re: binutils-gold and symbols files

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009, Peter Fritzsche wrote: > > Please understand me right. I don't have something against it, but I don't > > know how to do it right and what autotool-gurus in Debian says about it. > Ok, /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz tells me about it. It > doesn't mention a lib

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

Thanks for your response, Charles! On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 12:09:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > As a maintainer of a web application, I share your worries. I never had any > user request to make it work out of the box with alternative web servers, so I > guess that my users have nothing to ga

Bug#555006: ITP: libcloud -- a unified interface to the cloud

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Soren Hansen * Package name: libcloud Version : 0.1.1~git20091107 Upstream Author : Alex Polvi * URL : http://www.libcloud.org/ * License : Apache2 Programming Lang: Python Description : a unified interface to t

Re: common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

Le Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 04:16:54PM +, Tzafrir Cohen a écrit : > > "To see your locally-installed documentation, use: > > http://localhost/vendor-apps/dwww > " Hello Tzafrir, native Debian applications are actually the ones which have the least benefit from this. I like a lot doc-central,

Re: DEP-5: binary package affected by license $foo

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Charles Plessy wrote: > I think that we are still far from producing copyright files specific to > binary > packages There are already copyright files in binary packages that are different to the source package debian/copyright; some of the source packages I've