On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:36:31 +0900,
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some things I noticed:
>
> o MAXPATHLEN is not available on some systems.
struct.h says:
| #ifndef MAXPATHLEN
| # define MAXPATHLEN 1024
| #endif
> p Is writing something like:
> Note that this license is not compati
Hey guys,
christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
> gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
Yes, it has to be gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
See? It has to be a _ not a - between the packagename and the version-
number.
so long...
da
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:36:31 +0900,
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some things I noticed:
>
> o MAXPATHLEN is not available on some systems.
struct.h says:
| #ifndef MAXPATHLEN
| # define MAXPATHLEN 1024
| #endif
> p Is writing something like:
> Note that this license is not compat
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:52:39AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter where the original
Hey guys,
christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
> gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
Yes, it has to be gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
See? It has to be a _ not a - between the packagename and the version-
number.
so long...
d
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:52:39AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter where the origina
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> >
> > It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> > extracts the tar and applies the Debian d
Title: 세일아이
바디 프레스
(다이어트운동기구)
시중가 39,000원
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:08:02AM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter whe
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> >
> > It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> > extracts the tar and applies
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
>
> It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
> rename the tarball, and you'll be
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> >
> > It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> > extracts the tar and applies the Debian
Title: ¼¼ÀϾÆÀÌ
¹Ùµð ÇÁ·¹½º
(´ÙÀ̾îÆ®¿îµ¿±â±¸)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:54:00PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:12:04PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Incidentally, is there a reason that the bytecode version stores
> > important information in the sections that are stripped? It seems to me
> > that this is
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:08:02AM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter wh
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> >
> > It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> > extracts the tar and applie
> But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
rename the tarball, and you'll be set.
> You mean I should only rename it ?
Yep.
pgpaGsE2tzeHm.pgp
D
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
>
> It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
> rename the tarball, and you'll b
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:13:30PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> You have to rename the original tarball to
> gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
>
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
You mean I should only rename it ?
Christophe
--
Christophe Barb
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:29:08PM -0600, Chris Halls wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > gphoto 2.0? Are
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Christophe,
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:49:49AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> > I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and
> > that I intend to become a maintener for.
>
> > There are two remainin
You have been subscribed to dailyspecial with the email address
"debian-mentors@lists.debian.org"
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:54:00PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:12:04PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Incidentally, is there a reason that the bytecode version stores
> > important information in the sections that are stripped? It seems to me
> > that this is
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:55:56PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Isn't putting valuable bytecode in an ELF section that is a target of
> "strip" kludgy behaviour in itself? This seems a bit like installing
> files into /var/tmp.
These are not "standard" executable, see my just posted reply.
Ch
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:12:04PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Incidentally, is there a reason that the bytecode version stores
> important information in the sections that are stripped? It seems to me
> that this is a bug in the package's build sequence or in the compiler.
> Or is it a fil
> But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
rename the tarball, and you'll be set.
> You mean I should only rename it ?
Yep.
msg05286/pgp0
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > Is it OK just to change the title of the wnpp bug and find a sponsor?
> > (I am in the NM queue.)
> Please find a sponsor first. Thanks.
> This is my opinion only,
It is also nice if the prospective NM will try and put some
trace of wo
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The file "foo" (for example) have not to be stripped (is a bytecode
> executable, so stripping will remove the bytecode and the executable
> will become useless), [...]
Isn't putting valuable bytecode in an ELF section that is a target of
"strip" k
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:15:13PM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> > I want to adopt osh (#89433), but I am not a Debian developer.
> > Is it OK just to change the title of the wnpp bug and find a sponsor?
> > (I am in the NM queue.)
>
> Please find a spo
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> gphoto2 inst
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:13:30PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> You have to rename the original tarball to
> gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
>
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
You mean I should only rename it ?
Christophe
--
Christophe Bar
> I've the upstream original tarball on the base directory :
>gphoto-2.0beta3.tar.gz
> Note that the upstream is 'gphoto' without '2' but the debian package
> name is 'gphoto2'
> The source tree is in
>gphoto2-2.0beta3/
>
> But when I build I get
> dpkg-genchanges: warning: missing Sectio
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 05:43:37PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > So, don't use dh_strip. dh_strip is a simple tool for simple
> > configurations; if you have one binary you need stripped, and one binary
> > you need left alone, and dh_strip doesn't do the trick, call strip
> > yourself.
Christophe,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:49:49AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and
> that I intend to become a maintener for.
> There are two remaining (known) problems during the package build.
> First I would like to avoid up
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:29:08PM -0600, Chris Halls wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > gphoto 2.0? Are
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Christophe,
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:49:49AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> > I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and
> > that I intend to become a maintener for.
>
> > There are two remaini
You have been subscribed to dailyspecial with the email address
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> My .deb of osh is available at:
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7-9.diff.gz
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> Note that osh is a setuid root shell and it does *NOT* drop root privilege
> when it executes a command. Be extremely careful when you configure or
> use it. (osh is installed in /usr/sbin/osh and its permission is 4754.
> It is not for a
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:55:56PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Isn't putting valuable bytecode in an ELF section that is a target of
> "strip" kludgy behaviour in itself? This seems a bit like installing
> files into /var/tmp.
These are not "standard" executable, see my just posted reply.
C
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:12:04PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Incidentally, is there a reason that the bytecode version stores
> important information in the sections that are stripped? It seems to me
> that this is a bug in the package's build sequence or in the compiler.
> Or is it a fi
I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and
that I intend to become a maintener for.
There are two remaining (known) problems during the package build.
First I would like to avoid uploading full source but I miss something
to generate the diff file.
I've the upstream
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > Is it OK just to change the title of the wnpp bug and find a sponsor?
> > (I am in the NM queue.)
> Please find a sponsor first. Thanks.
> This is my opinion only,
It is also nice if the prospective NM will try and put some
trace of w
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:23:54AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > How can I strip only "foo.opt" using dh_strip?
>
> The short answer is: you can't.
>
> In dh_strip:
>
> foreach my $f (@{$dh{EXCLUDE}}) {
> return if ($fn=~m/\Q$f\E/);
> }
I saw it, but I hoped that some test
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The file "foo" (for example) have not to be stripped (is a bytecode
> executable, so stripping will remove the bytecode and the executable
> will become useless), [...]
Isn't putting valuable bytecode in an ELF section that is a target of
"strip"
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:15:13PM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> > I want to adopt osh (#89433), but I am not a Debian developer.
> > Is it OK just to change the title of the wnpp bug and find a sponsor?
> > (I am in the NM queue.)
>
> Please find a sp
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> gphoto2 ins
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:32:15PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Hi mentors,
> I have a package that install two binaries, one of them have to be
> stripped while the other have not to.
> The file "foo" (for example) have not to be stripped (is a bytecode
> executable, so stripping will remo
> I've the upstream original tarball on the base directory :
>gphoto-2.0beta3.tar.gz
> Note that the upstream is 'gphoto' without '2' but the debian package
> name is 'gphoto2'
> The source tree is in
>gphoto2-2.0beta3/
>
> But when I build I get
> dpkg-genchanges: warning: missing Secti
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 05:43:37PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > So, don't use dh_strip. dh_strip is a simple tool for simple
> > configurations; if you have one binary you need stripped, and one binary
> > you need left alone, and dh_strip doesn't do the trick, call strip
> > yourself
Christophe,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:49:49AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and
> that I intend to become a maintener for.
> There are two remaining (known) problems during the package build.
> First I would like to avoid u
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> My .deb of osh is available at:
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7-9.diff.gz
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficia
Hi mentors,
I have a package that install two binaries, one of them have to be
stripped while the other have not to.
The file "foo" (for example) have not to be stripped (is a bytecode
executable, so stripping will remove the bytecode and the executable
will become useless), the file "foo.opt" ha
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> Note that osh is a setuid root shell and it does *NOT* drop root privilege
> when it executes a command. Be extremely careful when you configure or
> use it. (osh is installed in /usr/sbin/osh and its permission is 4754.
> It is not for
I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and
that I intend to become a maintener for.
There are two remaining (known) problems during the package build.
First I would like to avoid uploading full source but I miss something
to generate the diff file.
I've the upstream
I want to adopt osh (#89433), but I am not a Debian developer,
so I can't change the title of the wnpp bug until I find a sponsor.
If you are interested, please sponsor me.
My .deb of osh is available at:
http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
http://www.interq.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:23:54AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > How can I strip only "foo.opt" using dh_strip?
>
> The short answer is: you can't.
>
> In dh_strip:
>
> foreach my $f (@{$dh{EXCLUDE}}) {
> return if ($fn=~m/\Q$f\E/);
> }
I saw it, but I hoped that some test
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:32:15PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Hi mentors,
> I have a package that install two binaries, one of them have to be
> stripped while the other have not to.
> The file "foo" (for example) have not to be stripped (is a bytecode
> executable, so stripping will rem
Shame on me.
I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell.
Then my DH_COMPAT was not set.
Thank you for your clue.
Christophe
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:59:12AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
> >
> > I'm tr
Hi mentors,
I have a package that install two binaries, one of them have to be
stripped while the other have not to.
The file "foo" (for example) have not to be stripped (is a bytecode
executable, so stripping will remove the bytecode and the executable
will become useless), the file "foo.opt" h
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:59:12AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to use dh_movefiles to fill a package-dev directory but
> > something change and I don't understand what is expected from me.
> >
> > # dh_movefile
I want to adopt osh (#89433), but I am not a Debian developer,
so I can't change the title of the wnpp bug until I find a sponsor.
If you are interested, please sponsor me.
My .deb of osh is available at:
http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
http://www.interq
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
>
> I'm trying to use dh_movefiles to fill a package-dev directory but
> something change and I don't understand what is expected from me.
>
> # dh_movefiles
> dh_movefiles: I was asked to move files from debian/tmp to debian/tmp.
Shame on me.
I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell.
Then my DH_COMPAT was not set.
Thank you for your clue.
Christophe
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:59:12AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
> >
> > I'm t
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:59:12AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to use dh_movefiles to fill a package-dev directory but
> > something change and I don't understand what is expected from me.
> >
> > # dh_movefil
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
>
> I'm trying to use dh_movefiles to fill a package-dev directory but
> something change and I don't understand what is expected from me.
>
> # dh_movefiles
> dh_movefiles: I was asked to move files from debian/tmp to debian/tmp.
66 matches
Mail list logo
