> > I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer
> > than the version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but
> > have not received a response.
>
> Well, a response _was_ sent.
>
> | So; go ahead and include the non-shared gdbm1.8.
Terribly sorry about that... It ap
Jon Eisenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer
> than the version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but
> have not received a response.
Well, a response _was_ sent.
--
James
| From nobody Sun Jan 21 16:52:16 2001
| Send
> I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer than the
> version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but have not received
> a response.
Sorry, I looked quickly and didn't realize just how out of date this
package really was. Bug #38026 contains the 1.8.0 availabili
> I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer than the
> version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but have not received
> a response.
How long did you wait? James is a very busy guy with a lot of
responsibilities. He'll get to you eventually.
You should file a
I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer than the
version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but have not received
a response. The source package, presumably because it's an uncommonly used
version of gdbm, contains the source to 1.8.0 which can be used during the
Package: liblockdev1-dev
Version: 1.0.0
Severity: normal
(Debian-mentors: this turns out to be a bug in liblockdev1-dev,
it seems.)
It doesn't create the symlink that other shared-library
-dev packages create; if I do the following, my problem
(described in the quoted message below) goes away:
> > I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer
> > than the version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but
> > have not received a response.
>
> Well, a response _was_ sent.
>
> | So; go ahead and include the non-shared gdbm1.8.
Terribly sorry about that... It a
Jon Eisenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer
> than the version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but
> have not received a response.
Well, a response _was_ sent.
--
James
| From nobody Sun Jan 21 16:52:16 2001
| Sen
> I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer than the
> version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but have not received
> a response.
Sorry, I looked quickly and didn't realize just how out of date this
package really was. Bug #38026 contains the 1.8.0 availabil
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 07:44:55PM -0500, Rene Weber wrote:
> - License is BSD, except that it diffs with the license in
> /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD:
>
> C U T H E R E
>
> diff bsd /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD
> 0a1
> > Copyr
> I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer than the
> version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but have not received
> a response.
How long did you wait? James is a very busy guy with a lot of
responsibilities. He'll get to you eventually.
You should file a
I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer than the
version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but have not received
a response. The source package, presumably because it's an uncommonly used
version of gdbm, contains the source to 1.8.0 which can be used during th
Package: liblockdev1-dev
Version: 1.0.0
Severity: normal
(Debian-mentors: this turns out to be a bug in liblockdev1-dev,
it seems.)
It doesn't create the symlink that other shared-library
-dev packages create; if I do the following, my problem
(described in the quoted message below) goes away:
Hello,
I recently posted an ITP to debian-devel (Bug #88567) for scanssh that
included the following questions. I did not receive any reply which sounds
ok to me for the first question about the -E option, but I am not sure what
to do about the BSD license that is not identical to the one
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 07:44:55PM -0500, Rene Weber wrote:
> - License is BSD, except that it diffs with the license in
> /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD:
>
> C U T H E R E
>
> diff bsd /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD
> 0a1
> > Copy
On 07-Mar-2001 Wouter de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have packages 2 programs and I am looking for sponsors. Currently I am
> still
> in the new maintainer queue (for months already) and waiting for DAM
> approval.
>
shouldn't the ability to count be a requirement for admittance into Debian (-:
Hi,
I have packages 2 programs and I am looking for sponsors. Currently I am still
in the new maintainer queue (for months already) and waiting for DAM approval.
The packages for which I seek sponsors are:
kascade - Client for Kascade, a distributed Open directory search-engine
ditty - Allows you
Hello,
I recently posted an ITP to debian-devel (Bug #88567) for scanssh that
included the following questions. I did not receive any reply which sounds
ok to me for the first question about the -E option, but I am not sure what
to do about the BSD license that is not identical to the on
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:01:39 -0500, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 08:39:47PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:26:35 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Then have three scripts. Put the common common code into a third script
>> >which is not cal
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 08:39:47PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:26:35 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Then have three scripts. Put the common common code into a third script
> >which is not called directly by init, but have the two init scripts call the
> >third script. T
On 07-Mar-2001 Wouter de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have packages 2 programs and I am looking for sponsors. Currently I am
> still
> in the new maintainer queue (for months already) and waiting for DAM
> approval.
>
shouldn't the ability to count be a requirement for admittance into Debian (-:
Hi,
I have packages 2 programs and I am looking for sponsors. Currently I am still
in the new maintainer queue (for months already) and waiting for DAM approval.
The packages for which I seek sponsors are:
kascade - Client for Kascade, a distributed Open directory search-engine
ditty - Allows yo
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:01:39 -0500, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 08:39:47PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:26:35 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Then have three scripts. Put the common common code into a third script
>> >which is not ca
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 08:39:47PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:26:35 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Then have three scripts. Put the common common code into a third script
> >which is not called directly by init, but have the two init scripts call the
> >third script.
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:26:35 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> (1)
>> Have one init script and have this init script be invoked in two
>> places.
>
>Yuck.
ack ;)
>> (2)
>> Have two completely different init scripts. I rejected this because
>> both scripts aren't that much different and there wou
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:20:50 +, Julian Gilbey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 06:00:01PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I am making my first tries with debconf at the moment. As suggested by
>> the debconf tutorial, my package now includes a templates and a config
>> file that a
Hello mentors
I've created my first package (wmxres) and would like to verify that it is
correct before I begin another. I would eventually like to be sponsored.
It is available at http://www.xtat.f2s.com/debian/. It is a dockable app
that allows switching of X modes. It does pass lintian (wood
> (1)
> Have one init script and have this init script be invoked in two
> places.
Yuck.
> (2)
> Have two completely different init scripts. I rejected this because
> both scripts aren't that much different and there would be much
> redundancy.
Then have three scripts. Put the common common cod
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:26:35 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> (1)
>> Have one init script and have this init script be invoked in two
>> places.
>
>Yuck.
ack ;)
>> (2)
>> Have two completely different init scripts. I rejected this because
>> both scripts aren't that much different and there wo
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 06:00:01PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> I am making my first tries with debconf at the moment. As suggested by
> the debconf tutorial, my package now includes a templates and a config
> file that are installed into debian/tmp/DEBIAN by debian/rules. This
> seem to work technic
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:20:50 +, Julian Gilbey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 06:00:01PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I am making my first tries with debconf at the moment. As suggested by
>> the debconf tutorial, my package now includes a templates and a config
>> file that
On 07-Mar-2001 Marc Haber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am making my first tries with debconf at the moment. As suggested by
> the debconf tutorial, my package now includes a templates and a config
> file that are installed into debian/tmp/DEBIAN by debian/rules. This
> seem to work technically, but lintian
Hi,
I am making my first tries with debconf at the moment. As suggested by
the debconf tutorial, my package now includes a templates and a config
file that are installed into debian/tmp/DEBIAN by debian/rules. This
seem to work technically, but lintian (potato's version) complains
about the two "u
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 06:56:44 +0100, Marc Haber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My question is: How do I do this in a policy compliant way? Is there
>something more elegant than having two init.d scripts in my package?
I have been evaluating the following alternatives:
(1)
Have one init script and hav
Hello mentors
I've created my first package (wmxres) and would like to verify that it is
correct before I begin another. I would eventually like to be sponsored.
It is available at http://www.xtat.f2s.com/debian/. It is a dockable app
that allows switching of X modes. It does pass lintian (woo
> (1)
> Have one init script and have this init script be invoked in two
> places.
Yuck.
> (2)
> Have two completely different init scripts. I rejected this because
> both scripts aren't that much different and there would be much
> redundancy.
Then have three scripts. Put the common common co
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 06:00:01PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> I am making my first tries with debconf at the moment. As suggested by
> the debconf tutorial, my package now includes a templates and a config
> file that are installed into debian/tmp/DEBIAN by debian/rules. This
> seem to work techni
On 07-Mar-2001 Marc Haber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am making my first tries with debconf at the moment. As suggested by
> the debconf tutorial, my package now includes a templates and a config
> file that are installed into debian/tmp/DEBIAN by debian/rules. This
> seem to work technically, but lintia
Hi,
I am making my first tries with debconf at the moment. As suggested by
the debconf tutorial, my package now includes a templates and a config
file that are installed into debian/tmp/DEBIAN by debian/rules. This
seem to work technically, but lintian (potato's version) complains
about the two "
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 06:56:44 +0100, Marc Haber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My question is: How do I do this in a policy compliant way? Is there
>something more elegant than having two init.d scripts in my package?
I have been evaluating the following alternatives:
(1)
Have one init script and ha
... when trying to build my 1st Debian package, I run into the following
if building on an NFS file system:
bash-2.03$ dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
dpkg-buildpackage: source package is xreboot
dpkg-buildpackage: source version is 1.0-1
dpkg-buildpackage: source maintainer is Valentijn Sessink
<[E
41 matches
Mail list logo
