On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 05:24:23PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > The upstream author gave me a list, and he is reliable.
>
> Since he keeps an eye on our BTS, why not try to persuade him to put
> the bug# into his changelog, when he thinks a bug is down? That's
> probably not significantly mo
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 01:37:05PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > There have even been some uploads with no other purpose than to
> > close some bugs, [...]
This makes a nice out-of-context quote, Colin!
> Hear, hear. The real reason why a bug was close
Peter Kruppa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to make a debian package of our php-based application, so
> it can be easily installed on a debian system. But I have a
> problem, it seems that you have to have at least 1 main binary in
> the package (is that true?)
I don't think so. There a
> But I have a problem, it seems that you have to have at least 1 main binary
> in the package (is that true?)
No, that is not true.
> Has somebody got a fine link how to make a debian package out of some code
> which doesn't need any compiling and which doesn't produce any binary...?
You can
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since testing is changing all the time, it would probably not be
> worthwhile to try to keep such a document up-to-date. Once woody
> cools and solidifies, someone could read through the complete set of
> Debian changelogs and try to pick out the most s
Hi ppl,
I'd like to make a debian package of our php-based application, so it can be
easily installed on a debian system.
But I have a problem, it seems that you have to have at least 1 main binary
in the package (is that true?) and the project is in fact only some php
scripts and some addition
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 05:24:23PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > The upstream author gave me a list, and he is reliable.
>
> Since he keeps an eye on our BTS, why not try to persuade him to put
> the bug# into his changelog, when he thinks a bug is down? That's
> probably not significantly m
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 01:37:05PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > There have even been some uploads with no other purpose than to
> > close some bugs, [...]
This makes a nice out-of-context quote, Colin!
> Hear, hear. The real reason why a bug was clos
Peter Kruppa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to make a debian package of our php-based application, so
> it can be easily installed on a debian system. But I have a
> problem, it seems that you have to have at least 1 main binary in
> the package (is that true?)
I don't think so. There
> But I have a problem, it seems that you have to have at least 1 main binary
> in the package (is that true?)
No, that is not true.
> Has somebody got a fine link how to make a debian package out of some code
> which doesn't need any compiling and which doesn't produce any binary...?
You can
Hi!
I recently had my machine crashed, and after the backup my ~/.gnupg
directory was missing - so I had to create a new keypair, leaving the
key in the debian keyring useless.
What should I do to get the key replaced? I assume it has to be signed by a
debian developer, but afterwards?
Any debia
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since testing is changing all the time, it would probably not be
> worthwhile to try to keep such a document up-to-date. Once woody
> cools and solidifies, someone could read through the complete set of
> Debian changelogs and try to pick out the most
Hi ppl,
I'd like to make a debian package of our php-based application, so it can be
easily installed on a debian system.
But I have a problem, it seems that you have to have at least 1 main binary
in the package (is that true?) and the project is in fact only some php
scripts and some additio
Hi!
I recently had my machine crashed, and after the backup my ~/.gnupg
directory was missing - so I had to create a new keypair, leaving the
key in the debian keyring useless.
What should I do to get the key replaced? I assume it has to be signed by a
debian developer, but afterwards?
Any debi
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:37:33AM +0200, peter karlsson wrote:
> Can a single binary package have a different name than the source package
> it comes from?
Yes, it can.
> I am packaging the LysKOM tty-client, which has the upstream name
> tty-client, but I have received requests for renaming the
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 01:37:05PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> >> * If this happens to me again, shoud I move all the 'Close' tags on the
> >> REJECTED package to the last version?
> >
> >I saw something like this in some packages:
> >
> > * Fixed in previous upload: Closes #xxx, #yyy, #zzz
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:37:33AM +0200, peter karlsson wrote:
> Can a single binary package have a different name than the source package
> it comes from?
Yes, it can.
> I am packaging the LysKOM tty-client, which has the upstream name
> tty-client, but I have received requests for renaming th
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 01:37:05PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> >> * If this happens to me again, shoud I move all the 'Close' tags on the
> >> REJECTED package to the last version?
> >
> >I saw something like this in some packages:
> >
> > * Fixed in previous upload: Closes #xxx, #yyy, #zz
18 matches
Mail list logo
