On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 12:02:29AM -0500, Scott wrote:
> First question (of many to come): using dpkg-buidpackage, I use the
> option -k and sign the package successfully (I think). How on
> earth do I check to see if the .deb is signed and correctly signed?
> During the process of the build, it
> Second question: I am making a .deb that is for any platform (it is a
> perl script/config files. But when I do the dpkg-buidpackage it makes
> the deb blahblahblah_i386.deb although in the config files I have stated
> that is for any platform. What am I doing wrong?
Have you said any platfor
On 19 Jan 2002, Scott wrote:
> First question (of many to come): using dpkg-buidpackage, I use the
> option -k and sign the package successfully (I think). How
> on earth do I check to see if the .deb is signed and correctly signed?
> During the process of the build, it asks me for my secret key
Hello All,
I am not a Debian Package Maintainer (as of yet). And this is probably
not the right mailing list for these questions. If not, please let me
know so I can move the discussion to the right place.
I have written some software that I am going to package up as .debs for
distrubution. B
Hello All,
I am not a Debian Package Maintainer (as of yet). And this is probably
not the right mailing list for these questions. If not, please let me
know so I can move the discussion to the right place.
I have written some software that I am going to package up as .debs for
distrubution. Be
> > 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 there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by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 installed on their system, or why some people need one and
>
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 12:02:29AM -0500, Scott wrote:
> First question (of many to come): using dpkg-buidpackage, I use the
> option -k and sign the package successfully (I think). How on
> earth do I check to see if the .deb is signed and correctly signed?
> During the process of the build, i
> Second question: I am making a .deb that is for any platform (it is a
> perl script/config files. But when I do the dpkg-buidpackage it makes
> the deb blahblahblah_i386.deb although in the config files I have stated
> that is for any platform. What am I doing wrong?
Have you said any platfo
On 19 Jan 2002, Scott wrote:
> First question (of many to come): using dpkg-buidpackage, I use the
> option -k and sign the package successfully (I think). How
> on earth do I check to see if the .deb is signed and correctly signed?
> During the process of the build, it asks me for my secret ke
Hello All,
I am not a Debian Package Maintainer (as of yet). And this is probably
not the right mailing list for these questions. If not, please let me
know so I can move the discussion to the right place.
I have written some software that I am going to package up as .debs for
distrubution.
Hello All,
I am not a Debian Package Maintainer (as of yet). And this is probably
not the right mailing list for these questions. If not, please let me
know so I can move the discussion to the right place.
I have written some software that I am going to package up as .debs for
distrubution. B
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > > debian/rules says:
> > > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> > > | # (this won't work:
> > > | # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild)
> > > Note the word "won't
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:21:23 +0900,
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > debian/rules says:
> > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> > | # (this won't work:
> > | # DEB
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > > debian/rules says:
> > > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> > > | # (this won't work:
> > > | # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild)
> > > Note the word "won'
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:21:23 +0900,
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > debian/rules says:
> > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> > | # (this won't work:
> > | # DE
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 03:20:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Every ELF binary I've ever seen has a .text section, so I'm sure there
> must be more to it than that. Either ocaml's compiler is placing
> important data in a section normally not used for non-expendable
> information, or strip
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> struct.h says:
> | #ifndef MAXPATHLEN
> | # define MAXPATHLEN 1024
> | #endif
As long as there are no assumptions in the code that library functions
won't return longer data, that's ok.
> > p Is writing something like:
> > Note that this license is not
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> debian/rules says:
> | # to compile with debugging information:
> | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> | # (this won't work:
> | # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild)
> Note the word "won't".
That won't work, bec
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
If you don't want to fix them, I surely won't upload them to Debian.
I think you are misunderstanding most of my comments.
> > Some things I noticed:
> >
> > o MAXPATHLEN is not available on some systems.
> struct.h says:
> | #ifndef MAXPA
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 03:20:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Every ELF binary I've ever seen has a .text section, so I'm sure there
> must be more to it than that. Either ocaml's compiler is placing
> important data in a section normally not used for non-expendable
> information, or strip
christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:09:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > > > Hey guys,
> > > >
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:09:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Just done that and
christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
> > > gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> 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 b
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> struct.h says:
> | #ifndef MAXPATHLEN
> | # define MAXPATHLEN 1024
> | #endif
As long as there are no assumptions in the code that library functions
won't return longer data, that's ok.
> > p Is writing something like:
> > Note that this license is no
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:22:50PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Sven wrote:
>
> > I don't think this is possible right now, since only build depends have arch
> > restrrictions, but maybe i am wrong. Does anyone have some idea on how to do
> > this ?
>
> Yes, with a substvar
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> debian/rules says:
> | # to compile with debugging information:
> | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> | # (this won't work:
> | # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild)
> Note the word "won't".
That won't work, be
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
If you don't want to fix them, I surely won't upload them to Debian.
I think you are misunderstanding most of my comments.
> > Some things I noticed:
> >
> > o MAXPATHLEN is not available on some systems.
> struct.h says:
> | #ifndef MAXP
christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:09:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > > > Hey guys,
> > > >
I want to adopt grandfatherclock (#100228), 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.
David Amor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you retitled the wnpp bug to ITA
(the retitle request was received by master.de
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:09:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Just done that an
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Sven wrote:
> I don't think this is possible right now, since only build depends have arch
> restrrictions, but maybe i am wrong. Does anyone have some idea on how to do
> this ?
Yes, with a substvar.
Simon
--
GPG public key available from http://phobos.fs.tum.de/pgp/Si
christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
> > > gphoto2-2.0beta3.ori
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> 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
Hello, ...
I have a multi binary package which builds a binary package (A) only for some
arches.
On the arches were the A package gets built, i want it to provide a virtual
package (V) on which other packages can depend upon, and on the other arches,
were A don't get build, i want another package
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:22:50PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Sven wrote:
>
> > I don't think this is possible right now, since only build depends have arch
> > restrrictions, but maybe i am wrong. Does anyone have some idea on how to do
> > this ?
>
> Yes, with a substva
Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 09:49, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > You have to rename the original tarball to
> > > gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
> >
> > I would not recommend that you d
I want to adopt grandfatherclock (#100228), 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.
David Amor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you retitled the wnpp bug to ITA
(the retitle request was received by master.d
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 09:49, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You have to rename the original tarball to
> > gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
>
> I would not recommend that you do that for the following
> reason : when the final rele
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Sven wrote:
> I don't think this is possible right now, since only build depends have arch
> restrrictions, but maybe i am wrong. Does anyone have some idea on how to do
> this ?
Yes, with a substvar.
Simon
--
GPG public key available from http://phobos.fs.tum.de/pgp/S
Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You have to rename the original tarball to
> gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
I would not recommend that you do that for the following
reason : when the final release of gphoto will ge released,
it will be versioned 2.0.
Ho
Hello, ...
I have a multi binary package which builds a binary package (A) only for some
arches.
On the arches were the A package gets built, i want it to provide a virtual
package (V) on which other packages can depend upon, and on the other arches,
were A don't get build, i want another packag
Title: ë ìë°ì ìë ìì´ - ìì´ë¬ë¸ìê¸ë¦¬ì¬
YTN ë´ì¤ 보기
Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 09:49, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > You have to rename the original tarball to
> > > gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
> >
> > I would not recommend that you
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 09:49, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You have to rename the original tarball to
> > gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
>
> I would not recommend that you do that for the following
> reason : when the final rel
Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You have to rename the original tarball to
> gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
I would not recommend that you do that for the following
reason : when the final release of gphoto will ge released,
it will be versioned 2.0.
H
Title: µÉ¼ö¹Û¿¡ ¾ø´Â ¿µ¾î - ¾ÆÀÌ·¯ºêÀ×±Û¸®½¬
YTN ´º½º º¸±â
47 matches
Mail list logo
