Re: Porting of non-free packages

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 11:43:14AM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote: > At Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:15:17 -1000, > Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > However, I checked Debian machines list and found there are no > > > m68k and arm machines for "woody". How can I build packages > > > for these

Re: Sponsor needed

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:28:05PM +0100, Eric VB wrote: > It'd be nice *for the Debian users* to have a less older version of this > package available in woody, before it gets frozen. If someone would be as nice > as to sponsor this package, it'd be cool. > > The files are available at ftp://eric

Re: Porting of non-free packages

Hi, At Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:15:17 -1000, Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, I checked Debian machines list and found there are no > > m68k and arm machines for "woody". How can I build packages > > for these architectures? > > I thought there were chroot's available? On which m

Re: Porting of non-free packages

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:05:07AM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote: > Thank you. I built packages for powerpc and sparc. Thus, now > xearth has packages for i386, alpha, powerpc, and sparc. > > However, I checked Debian machines list and found there are no > m68k and arm machines for "woody". How

rio500 pre-release package

I've uploaded a pre-release version of rio500 (#85099 in the BTS) to . If anyone feels a burning desire to take a look at it, I'd appreciate hearing any comments you might have. I need to tweak README.Debian a bit and bump the Debian version -1, but I thin

Re: Porting of non-free packages

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 11:43:14AM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote: > At Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:15:17 -1000, > Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > However, I checked Debian machines list and found there are no > > > m68k and arm machines for "woody". How can I build packages > > > for these

Re: Sponsor needed

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:28:05PM +0100, Eric VB wrote: > It'd be nice *for the Debian users* to have a less older version of this > package available in woody, before it gets frozen. If someone would be as nice > as to sponsor this package, it'd be cool. > > The files are available at ftp://eri

Re: Porting of non-free packages

Hi, At Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:15:17 -1000, Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, I checked Debian machines list and found there are no > > m68k and arm machines for "woody". How can I build packages > > for these architectures? > > I thought there were chroot's available? On which

Re: Porting of non-free packages

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:05:07AM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote: > Thank you. I built packages for powerpc and sparc. Thus, now > xearth has packages for i386, alpha, powerpc, and sparc. > > However, I checked Debian machines list and found there are no > m68k and arm machines for "woody". How

rio500 pre-release package

I've uploaded a pre-release version of rio500 (#85099 in the BTS) to . If anyone feels a burning desire to take a look at it, I'd appreciate hearing any comments you might have. I need to tweak README.Debian a bit and bump the Debian version -1, but I thi

Re: Fwd: xmorph_20000428-2_i386.changes REJECTED

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Luis Arocha wrote: > > Why do you want to upload the .orig file? You are uploading a package with > > the same upstream .orig.tar.gz as the package already in unstable, that > > means it would be a waste of bandwidth to upload it again. > > > > I changed the name and directory

Re: Build-Depends

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Jochen Voss wrote: > I have two question about Build-Depends: > (1) If I want to Build-Depend on packages A, B, C, D, E, and F. And A > depends on B, C, D, E, and F. Should I just mention A, because it > implies B to F or should I enumerate them all? Does your package need

Re: Build-Depends

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:16:54PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > (1) If I want to Build-Depend on packages A, B, C, D, E, and F. And A > depends on B, C, D, E, and F. Should I just mention A, because it > implies B to F or should I enumerate them all? That depends on the kind of dependency. If yo

Re: Build-Depends

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > then? Or is there some command to check the build dependencies? apt 0.4 is going to address this, I tried it and it is going very well! you may do: apt-get build-dep source-package-name but there's also Joey Hess' dpkg-che

RE: Build-Depends

On 16-Feb-2001 Jochen Voss wrote: > Hi, > > I have two question about Build-Depends: > > (1) If I want to Build-Depend on packages A, B, C, D, E, and F. And A > depends on B, C, D, E, and F. Should I just mention A, because it > implies B to F or should I enumerate them all? > the smallest s

Build-Depends

Hi, I have two question about Build-Depends: (1) If I want to Build-Depend on packages A, B, C, D, E, and F. And A depends on B, C, D, E, and F. Should I just mention A, because it implies B to F or should I enumerate them all? (2) If I try to compile a package via "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroo

Re: Fwd: xmorph_20000428-2_i386.changes REJECTED

Y el viernes 16 de febrero, Adrian Bunk escribió: > > Why do you want to upload the .orig file? You are uploading a package with > the same upstream .orig.tar.gz as the package already in unstable, that > means it would be a waste of bandwidth to upload it again. > I changed the name and directo

Re: Fwd: xmorph_20000428-2_i386.changes REJECTED

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Luis Arocha wrote: > > - Forwarded message from Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:07:01 -0500 > From: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Luis Arocha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: xmorph_2428-2_i386.changes REJECTED > > Re

Fwd: xmorph_20000428-2_i386.changes REJECTED

- Forwarded message from Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:07:01 -0500 From: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Luis Arocha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: xmorph_2428-2_i386.changes REJECTED Rejected: md5sum for /org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/woody/

Sponsor needed

Hi, I'm (maybe) a DD to be. My NMA recommended me to DMA 4 (!) months ago and since then I've been waiting for a Sign ... 6 months ago, I posted a ITA for a package called Crafty, a really powerful chess game, that had been orphaned by its previous maintainer. I've already build two newer vers

please check 2nd packaging of "waili"

hi the mainstream author has asked to name the packages libwaili-* instead of libwaili-gpl- I have done some changes; may you please check again? thanks bye -- A Mennucc "È un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa!" (Renato Carotone)

Re: Fwd: xmorph_20000428-2_i386.changes REJECTED

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Luis Arocha wrote: > > Why do you want to upload the .orig file? You are uploading a package with > > the same upstream .orig.tar.gz as the package already in unstable, that > > means it would be a waste of bandwidth to upload it again. > > > > I changed the name and director

Re: Build-Depends

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Jochen Voss wrote: > I have two question about Build-Depends: > (1) If I want to Build-Depend on packages A, B, C, D, E, and F. And A > depends on B, C, D, E, and F. Should I just mention A, because it > implies B to F or should I enumerate them all? Does your package nee

Re: Build-Depends

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:16:54PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > (1) If I want to Build-Depend on packages A, B, C, D, E, and F. And A > depends on B, C, D, E, and F. Should I just mention A, because it > implies B to F or should I enumerate them all? That depends on the kind of dependency. If y

Re: Build-Depends

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > then? Or is there some command to check the build dependencies? apt 0.4 is going to address this, I tried it and it is going very well! you may do: apt-get build-dep source-package-name but there's also Joey Hess' dpkg-ch

RE: Build-Depends

On 16-Feb-2001 Jochen Voss wrote: > Hi, > > I have two question about Build-Depends: > > (1) If I want to Build-Depend on packages A, B, C, D, E, and F. And A > depends on B, C, D, E, and F. Should I just mention A, because it > implies B to F or should I enumerate them all? > the smallest

Build-Depends

Hi, I have two question about Build-Depends: (1) If I want to Build-Depend on packages A, B, C, D, E, and F. And A depends on B, C, D, E, and F. Should I just mention A, because it implies B to F or should I enumerate them all? (2) If I try to compile a package via "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakero

Re: Fwd: xmorph_20000428-2_i386.changes REJECTED

Y el viernes 16 de febrero, Adrian Bunk escribió: > > Why do you want to upload the .orig file? You are uploading a package with > the same upstream .orig.tar.gz as the package already in unstable, that > means it would be a waste of bandwidth to upload it again. > I changed the name and direct

Re: Fwd: xmorph_20000428-2_i386.changes REJECTED

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Luis Arocha wrote: > > - Forwarded message from Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:07:01 -0500 > From: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Luis Arocha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: xmorph_2428-2_i386.changes REJECTED > > R

Fwd: xmorph_20000428-2_i386.changes REJECTED

- Forwarded message from Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:07:01 -0500 From: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Luis Arocha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: xmorph_2428-2_i386.changes REJECTED Rejected: md5sum for /org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/woody

Re: Porting of non-free packages

Ben Collins wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:24:56PM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I uploaded a non-free package xearth at the end of last year for unstable. > > I uploaded source and binary for i386. However, I cannot see any binaries > > for other than alpha and i386 in the

Sponsor needed

Hi, I'm (maybe) a DD to be. My NMA recommended me to DMA 4 (!) months ago and since then I've been waiting for a Sign ... 6 months ago, I posted a ITA for a package called Crafty, a really powerful chess game, that had been orphaned by its previous maintainer. I've already build two newer vers

Re: Porting of non-free packages

Hi, At Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:46:05 -0500, Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most autobuilders do not build for non-free, simply because they like to > keep things prinstine for main. If you want to build your package for > other archs, check the machines listing and login using your Debian >

please check 2nd packaging of "waili"

hi the mainstream author has asked to name the packages libwaili-* instead of libwaili-gpl- I have done some changes; may you please check again? thanks bye -- A Mennucc "È un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa!" (Renato Carotone) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a

RE: lintian + standards version?

On 16-Feb-2001 Drew Parsons wrote: > I've been setting the Standards-Version of my packages to 3.5.0.0, but > lintian (v 1.20.6) complains: > > W: gworldclock source: newer-standards-version 3.5.0.0 > > Indeed, /usr/share/lintian/checks/standards-version doesn't contain any > references to 3.5,

Re: Porting of non-free packages

Ben Collins wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:24:56PM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I uploaded a non-free package xearth at the end of last year for unstable. > > I uploaded source and binary for i386. However, I cannot see any binaries > > for other than alpha and i386 in th

Re: Porting of non-free packages

Hi, At Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:46:05 -0500, Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most autobuilders do not build for non-free, simply because they like to > keep things prinstine for main. If you want to build your package for > other archs, check the machines listing and login using your Debian

Re: Questions about filesystem layout for new package nisca

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:43:45PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: > Hi. I have decided (and gotten permission) to package NISCA, which is a > program > that is similar to but more customizable than MRTG. It is written in php, so > there are no compiled files. Thus all files are architecture indepe

quitting from install scripts

I'm planning to have mirrormagic use debconf to ask the user if they want to delete the highscore files from the older version (which are incompatible from the new). Having a choice of Yes/No is clear, but it seemed to me it might be appropriate to provide a third alternative, "Quit", which aborts

Re: Caught in the act

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:49:57PM +0100, Ingo Saitz wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote: > > -- Would that be 'legal' anyway? Modifiying installed files of one pkg > > by the scripts of another? (They're closely related however and chances > > are good that aft

Re: Caught in the act

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote: > -- Would that be 'legal' anyway? Modifiying installed files of one pkg > by the scripts of another? (They're closely related however and chances > are good that after all this weird stuff, the next pkg to be removed > would be the

RE: lintian + standards version?

On 16-Feb-2001 Drew Parsons wrote: > I've been setting the Standards-Version of my packages to 3.5.0.0, but > lintian (v 1.20.6) complains: > > W: gworldclock source: newer-standards-version 3.5.0.0 > > Indeed, /usr/share/lintian/checks/standards-version doesn't contain any > references to 3.5,

Re: Porting of non-free packages

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:24:56PM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote: > Hi, > > I uploaded a non-free package xearth at the end of last year for unstable. > I uploaded source and binary for i386. However, I cannot see any binaries > for other than alpha and i386 in the package pool so far. > > Are th

lintian + standards version?

I've been setting the Standards-Version of my packages to 3.5.0.0, but lintian (v 1.20.6) complains: W: gworldclock source: newer-standards-version 3.5.0.0 Indeed, /usr/share/lintian/checks/standards-version doesn't contain any references to 3.5, despite a recent version (1.20.4) closing bugs #84

Re: spurious INSTALL file in docs

Ooh, I already found it. debian/docs was the culprit. On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:24:58PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: > I'm trying to tidy up my package gworldclock. > There's an INSTALL file in the package root directory (from the upstream > edition), but it's not referred to in the build proces

Re: spurious INSTALL file in docs

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:24:58PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: > I'm trying to tidy up my package gworldclock. > There's an INSTALL file in the package root directory (from the upstream > edition), but it's not referred to in the build process. It's just a > standard informative file for autoconf.

spurious INSTALL file in docs

I'm trying to tidy up my package gworldclock. There's an INSTALL file in the package root directory (from the upstream edition), but it's not referred to in the build process. It's just a standard informative file for autoconf. Now debian/rules simply handles docs by invoking dh_installdocs. Howe

Re: Questions about filesystem layout for new package nisca

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:43:45PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: > Hi. I have decided (and gotten permission) to package NISCA, which is a program > that is similar to but more customizable than MRTG. It is written in php, so > there are no compiled files. Thus all files are architecture independ

"Testing" again

Hi! If the testing scripts says that an architecture is out of date, and that architecture is not listed as one of the target architectures for the program in question, where do I ask to get it corrected? -- \\// Live Long and Prosper Peter Karlsson Developer / Utvecklare / Utvikler, O

quitting from install scripts

I'm planning to have mirrormagic use debconf to ask the user if they want to delete the highscore files from the older version (which are incompatible from the new). Having a choice of Yes/No is clear, but it seemed to me it might be appropriate to provide a third alternative, "Quit", which abort

Re: Caught in the act

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:49:57PM +0100, Ingo Saitz wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote: > > -- Would that be 'legal' anyway? Modifiying installed files of one pkg > > by the scripts of another? (They're closely related however and chances > > are good that af

Re: Caught in the act

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote: > -- Would that be 'legal' anyway? Modifiying installed files of one pkg > by the scripts of another? (They're closely related however and chances > are good that after all this weird stuff, the next pkg to be removed > would be the

Re: Porting of non-free packages

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:24:56PM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote: > Hi, > > I uploaded a non-free package xearth at the end of last year for unstable. > I uploaded source and binary for i386. However, I cannot see any binaries > for other than alpha and i386 in the package pool so far. > > Are t

lintian + standards version?

I've been setting the Standards-Version of my packages to 3.5.0.0, but lintian (v 1.20.6) complains: W: gworldclock source: newer-standards-version 3.5.0.0 Indeed, /usr/share/lintian/checks/standards-version doesn't contain any references to 3.5, despite a recent version (1.20.4) closing bugs #8

Re: spurious INSTALL file in docs

Ooh, I already found it. debian/docs was the culprit. On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:24:58PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: > I'm trying to tidy up my package gworldclock. > There's an INSTALL file in the package root directory (from the upstream > edition), but it's not referred to in the build proce

Re: spurious INSTALL file in docs

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:24:58PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: > I'm trying to tidy up my package gworldclock. > There's an INSTALL file in the package root directory (from the upstream > edition), but it's not referred to in the build process. It's just a > standard informative file for autoconf.

spurious INSTALL file in docs

I'm trying to tidy up my package gworldclock. There's an INSTALL file in the package root directory (from the upstream edition), but it's not referred to in the build process. It's just a standard informative file for autoconf. Now debian/rules simply handles docs by invoking dh_installdocs. How

"Testing" again

Hi! If the testing scripts says that an architecture is out of date, and that architecture is not listed as one of the target architectures for the program in question, where do I ask to get it corrected? -- \\// Live Long and Prosper Peter Karlsson Developer / Utvecklare / Utvikler,

Porting of non-free packages

Hi, I uploaded a non-free package xearth at the end of last year for unstable. I uploaded source and binary for i386. However, I cannot see any binaries for other than alpha and i386 in the package pool so far. Are there any documents on automatic porting or on available machines for manual port

Re: Caught in the act

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:15:12AM +0100, Martin Albert wrote: > Upgrading of that pkg is no problem. The old-lib vanishes, the new not > including the utils installs. Same for the -dev, the old one being > replaced with the new which includes the utils. > > But downgrading naturally blows. The

Porting of non-free packages

Hi, I uploaded a non-free package xearth at the end of last year for unstable. I uploaded source and binary for i386. However, I cannot see any binaries for other than alpha and i386 in the package pool so far. Are there any documents on automatic porting or on available machines for manual por