Re: patching an original tarball

2000-01-26 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 01:08:52PM +0100, Jordi wrote: > > Admittedly the upstream patch doesn't belong in the Debian .diff.gz > > file either, but it should be only a temporary situation until the next > > upstream version. > > If nano-0.7.4-2 (the patched version) is admitted into frozen, I hope

Re: patching an original tarball

2000-01-26 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 01:08:52PM +0100, Jordi wrote: > If nano-0.7.4-2 (the patched version) is admitted into frozen, I hope it > would be the last upstream version for Potato, so it would be a long > temporary situation. What do I do then? Just patch and recompile? Place a > note somewhere? I

Re: dh_installinfo ?

2000-01-26 Thread Sven LUTHER
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 12:19:36PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > On 25-Jan-2000 Sven LUTHER wrote: > > Hello, ... > > > > i received a bug against one of my packages saying that the .info > > documentation is not available by info directly, and that i should add a > > prerm and postinst c

Re: patching an original tarball

2000-01-26 Thread Jordi
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 11:09:38PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 04:48:57PM -0800, Seth R Arnold wrote: > > My gut feeling is, after patching the upstream tarball with an upstream > > patch, it is still prinstine -- but that is my gut feeling. > > No, that wouldn't be pris

Re: Build-Depends?

2000-01-26 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 11:18:35AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > On the topic of build-depends, I was under the impression that it > is possible to have Build-Depends automagically set. If so, how? Your impression is wrong. At least currently. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho http://www.iki.fi/gaia/

Re: patching an original tarball

2000-01-26 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 04:48:57PM -0800, Seth R Arnold wrote: > My gut feeling is, after patching the upstream tarball with an upstream > patch, it is still prinstine -- but that is my gut feeling. No, that wouldn't be pristine -- it's not as it was downloaded from the upstream author, which is t

Re: dh_installinfo ?

2000-01-26 Thread Sven LUTHER
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 12:19:36PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > On 25-Jan-2000 Sven LUTHER wrote: > > Hello, ... > > > > i received a bug against one of my packages saying that the .info > > documentation is not available by info directly, and that i should add a > > prerm and postinst c

Re: patching an original tarball

2000-01-26 Thread Seth R Arnold
My gut feeling is, after patching the upstream tarball with an upstream patch, it is still prinstine -- but that is my gut feeling. On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 01:30:38AM +0100, Jordi wrote: > Hello, > > Upstream maintainer of nano has provided me with a patch that backports an > outstanding bug in t

patching an original tarball

2000-01-26 Thread Jordi
Hello, Upstream maintainer of nano has provided me with a patch that backports an outstanding bug in the editor, meant to be applied for frozen. I have some doubts on how I should do this. If I patch the affected .c directly, the sources will not be pristine anymore, correct? Should I do the patc

Re: Build-Depends?

2000-01-26 Thread Brian May
> "Michael" == Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Michael> Dear Debian-Mentors I wonder, why my "Build-Depends:" Michael> Field is ignored by dpkg-source and dpkg-buildpackage ? On the topic of build-depends, I was under the impression that it is possible to have Build-Depends a