On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 02:06:01PM -0800, Oscar Levi wrote:
> > BTW, any chance of making a dpkg check a DEBIAN/perms file for what the
> > permissions will be on the installed files? Something the maintainer can
> > set himself.
>
> How is this necessary? If there is something that cannot be set
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 04:25:56PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 12:32:58PM -0800, Oscar Levi wrote:
> >
> > I've been a sudo user as well and use it because I trust it. The only
> > benefit I can see to fakeroot is that I don't have to enter a
> > password. What sorts of g
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 12:32:58PM -0800, Oscar Levi wrote:
>
> I've been a sudo user as well and use it because I trust it. The only
> benefit I can see to fakeroot is that I don't have to enter a
> password. What sorts of glitches do people get with fakeroot?
The benefit with fakeroot is that
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 08:22:22PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It is bad advice for someone asking help about fakeroot to tell them
> > to also use sudo or super. Pick one and one only.
>
> It's not bad advice. I see fakeroot consistently causing
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is bad advice for someone asking help about fakeroot to tell them
> to also use sudo or super. Pick one and one only.
It's not bad advice. I see fakeroot consistently causing problems for
people, and I've, personally, had bad experiences with it in
Ben Collins wrote:
> No, the debian changelog can be used to only note things you did for the
> debian package. Like if you changed the postinst script, or added a menu
> for the debian package. You are more than welcome to keep your program
> changes seperate from the debian/changelog.
>From his
Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> 2. I have a NEWS file which keeps track of the latest changes. The
> debian has the changelog. Do I have to duplicate the entries from NEWS
> to the changelog ? Is it enough to keep them in NEWS and increment only
> the version number of changelog ?
You need to put some so
Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> Is it OK to add a entry to debian/rules like distclean to clean both the
> debian and the main source directory ? Debian users will always give
> "debian/rules distclean" while the others will use "make distclean".
> This rule is more for me, in order to know that I tar.gz
>
> I just noticed that my packages don't show `Section' and `Priority' lines
> when you do `dpkg -s xwatch` like other packages do.
>
> I didn't add `Section' and `Priority' lines for the binary package
> (because deb-make didn't put it in initially):
Note that deb-make is deprecated. Have a
> "Ionutz" == Ionutz Borcoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ionutz> Hi, I am trying to package VDK libs. I have added this in
Ionutz> my control file:
Ionutz> libvdk depends on libgtk 1.1.7 or more. However, this is
Ionutz> what I get in my libvdk1.deb:
Ionutz> No reference
¡Hola!
> > > If I run this as root, how can I sign the package, as my pgp key was
> > > created for my personal account.
> > sudo is your friend.
> sudo says
> Sorry, user borco is not allowed to execute "/sbin/ldconfig" as root on
> borco-ei.eng.hokudai.ac.jp.
> Can I change ldconfig with some
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 10:54:59AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 08:41:54AM -0800, Oscar Levi wrote:
>
> > I'd let this drop, but I think I'm gonna learn somthing.
> >
> > How is it that you created files owned by root without ever changing
> > your uid to root?
>
Santiago Vila wrote:
> FYI: According to the changelog, debstd already passes -isp option to
> dpkg-gencontrol since version 3.5.12 (wishlist bug #23720).
Thanks. Should I re-upload a version of xwatch with the inserted
lines in the control file?
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 08:41:54AM -0800, Oscar Levi wrote:
> I'd let this drop, but I think I'm gonna learn somthing.
>
> How is it that you created files owned by root without ever changing
> your uid to root?
>
> fakeroot chown root.root FILENAME
>
> doesn't do it, right?
No, it doesn't
Hi.
FYI: According to the changelog, debstd already passes -isp option to
dpkg-gencontrol since version 3.5.12 (wishlist bug #23720).
Thanks.
--
"d4d0135f848bca314003534bb89f657f" (a truly random sig)
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 05:44:01PM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> Oscar Levi wrote:
> >
> > If I understand this correctly, our petitioner was running the install
> > target for his library and failed with ldconfig. Now, since this step
> > is optional when creating a DEB, fakeroot suffices to p
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 03:19:46AM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to package my first set of libs. I am doing this from my
> account with fakeroot. The problem is that this way, the process stops
> with the following error:
Just in case...
1) In this case the Makefile should
I just noticed that my packages don't show `Section' and `Priority' lines
when you do `dpkg -s xwatch` like other packages do.
I didn't add `Section' and `Priority' lines for the binary package
(because deb-make didn't put it in initially):
e.g. my control file:
---
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 05:26:05PM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
>
> I was indeed already using fakeroot. The problem with ldconfig was
> something like:
>
> /sbin/ldconfig SOMELIBS
> /sbin/ldconfig: can't create /etc/ld.so.cache~ (Permission denied)
>
> By saying:
>
> /sbin/ldconfig -n SOMELIB
Chris Waters wrote:
> In the long run, I'd like to try to get this fixed upstream, with some
> sort of version numbering in the config files, but that doesn't help
> today. Does anyone have any suggestions, or better yet, examples of
> other packages that have had this problem, and how it was solv
Oscar Levi wrote:
>
> If I understand this correctly, our petitioner was running the install
> target for his library and failed with ldconfig. Now, since this step
> is optional when creating a DEB, fakeroot suffices to prevent make
> from returning an error status for the impossible command (gi
Here's a situation I'm not entirely sure about. Package has a new
upstream version. New version wants users (not installer) to delete old
config file ~/.packagerc. What should *I* (the packager) do?
I obviously can't find all the users on the system and delete their
files myself. But merely in
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 03:22:46AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Yes; well eveyone needs some level of 'root'ness when creating .debs,
> since files in debs, by policy, should be owned by root. fakeroot
> lets you pretend a file is owned by root without bothering to su and
> all that.
If I unders
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> "Oscar" == Oscar Levi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 02:38:16AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >> It is bad advice for someone asking help about fakeroot to tell
> >> them to also use sudo or super. Pick one and one only.
>
> > I read that he need
"Oscar" == Oscar Levi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 02:38:16AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>> It is bad advice for someone asking help about fakeroot to tell
>> them to also use sudo or super. Pick one and one only.
> I read that he needed to have root priviledges as I hav
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 02:38:16AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> It is bad advice for someone asking help about fakeroot to tell them
> to also use sudo or super. Pick one and one only.
I read that he needed to have root priviledges as I have when creating
packages. I didn't see him asking for h
"Oscar" == Oscar Levi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 01:35:07AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>> Yes; I think the other advice was rather bad.
> Really. That sounds like a jab. Is there an ego needing a snack?
No, I don't think so. Maybe I wasn't clear.
It is bad advice
"Matthias" == Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it allowed to use /usr/doc/, if no binary
> packages with the exists? I don't see anything in
> the policy, which explicitely forbids this.
It can use that dir, but there must be at least a symlink for
/usr/doc// .
--
.Adam Di [EM
"Dave" == Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the help...But just out of curiousity, is all this
> described all in one place somewhere? I don't like to think I was
> being completely blind...I was going to mail the bloke who is
> writing the new version of the deb new maintainers
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> Well, actually, I think you're only confusing the issue with
> '-DVDKDEBUG'. -dbg is for versions of libraries which debugging
> symbols exposed so that problems may be debugged. Compiling with a
> different define, at least in my opinion, lowers the usefulness of the
>
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 01:35:07AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Yes; I think the other advice was rather bad.
Really. That sounds like a jab. Is there an ego needing a snack?
What is 'bad' about using sudo? If I have a package that needs to be
owned by root what is wrong with sudo? I'm not
"Ionutz" == Ionutz Borcoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, I want to package the VDK libs. But I have to take a decission:
> how to make the dbg package.
First off, this is all described in the Packaging Manual.
> The VDK, if compiled with "-g -DVDKDEBUG" can provide additional
> information,
"Ionutz" == Ionutz Borcoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oscar Levi wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 06:22:47AM +0900, Ionutz Borcoman wrote: >
>> James Troup wrote: > > > > Ionutz Borcoman
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > If I run this
>> as root, how can I sign the package, as my pgp k
Hi,
I am trying to package VDK libs. I have added this in my control file:
Source: vdk
Section: libs
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Ionutz Borcoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Standards-Version: 2.4.0.0
Package: libvdk1
Architecture: any
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}
libvdk depends on libgtk 1.1.7 or more
Oscar Levi wrote:
> I think it is only a problem for licensing. If it doesn't
> violate their license and as long as your .dsc will work with
> the original [source tar file] as well as your reduced source
> archive, there isn't a problem. No one can reasonably object
> to a little bandwidth sa
35 matches
Mail list logo
