Do I need the Conficts and Replaces fields in this and other Package
entries where there was one like it in the previous XEmacs version?
I think I do; tell me if I'm wrong.
8<>8
Package: @PROGNAME@@MAJVERSION@@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archit
Previously Gwyneth Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> Does anyone have any pointers to where I might find the source code
> which generates this screen and process this info?
Check the boot-floppies package.
Wichert.
--
==
This combi
> Devel_std etc...). Does anyone have any pointers to where I might
> find the source code which generates this screen and process this info?
I would check out the boot-floppies package:
http://packages.debian.org/boot-floppies
Wil
Hi. I am currently working on a project closely related to debian.
We are trying to add another package category to the installation
process.
When installing a debian system to a computer, it asks you which set of
packages you want to install on your system (i.e. Admin, Basic,
Devel_comp,
Devel_st
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 10:04:15PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Gopal Narayanan writes:
> > Based on this, it seems to me that I should make 5 separate wrapper
> > packages, and force dependencies accordingly. Am I right?
>
> How about a single package with a postinst that figures out what binary t
You might trye looking in the maint-guide package or in the article
on OpenResources about packing for Debian
(http://www.openresources.com/magazine)
Regards
Javi
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 10:51:00AM -0400, Dpk wrote:
> The web pages give much information about creating De
On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 09:32:08PM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> While waiting to become a debian maintainer, I am trying to
> "polish" my package(s), and I have a few questions:
>
> 1) I am the author of program I am packaging. To save myself
> some work, I have packaged it as a native debian
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 02:19:33AM +0200, Jim Mintha wrote:
> slang1 (<< 1.3), slang1 (>> 1.2.2-0)
>
> When I took over the slang1 package I failed to notice the
> shlibs that defined the above. The problem is that version 1.3.x is
> compatible with 1.2. This leaves me with a number of options:
The web pages give much information about creating Debian packages.
However, I am starting out by adopting an existing package, which I
have found much information about doing. Could someone point me in
the right direction on how to modify existing packages?
Please CC me on any e-mails, as I am
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 02:19:33AM +0200, Jim Mintha wrote:
> I have a problem with the slang library. The current version is
> slang1_1.2.2 I began to package the new version 1.3.8. I installed it
> on my own system to test and everything went fine. However when I
> upgraded to the latest potat
Gopal Narayanan writes:
> Based on this, it seems to me that I should make 5 separate wrapper
> packages, and force dependencies accordingly. Am I right?
How about a single package with a postinst that figures out what binary the
user needs and tells him what to get and how to get it? If you are
I have a problem with the slang library. The current version is
slang1_1.2.2 I began to package the new version 1.3.8. I installed it
on my own system to test and everything went fine. However when I
upgraded to the latest potato anything depending on slang1 broke
because they all had depends l
12 matches
Mail list logo
