On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 06:43:49PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
> I'm thinking about packaging gphoto2-2.0 beta4dev9 instead of beta3.
> How should I number my package to be able to provide later a beta4?
>
> gphoto2-2.0beta2 is in the archive today.
> So as already discuted here, I will use gp
I'm thinking about packaging gphoto2-2.0 beta4dev9 instead of beta3.
How should I number my package to be able to provide later a beta4?
gphoto2-2.0beta2 is in the archive today.
So as already discuted here, I will use gphoto2-2.0beta4
If I do something like 2.0beta4-0.dev9
I should be able to d
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 06:43:49PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
> I'm thinking about packaging gphoto2-2.0 beta4dev9 instead of beta3.
> How should I number my package to be able to provide later a beta4?
>
> gphoto2-2.0beta2 is in the archive today.
> So as already discuted here, I will use g
I'm thinking about packaging gphoto2-2.0 beta4dev9 instead of beta3.
How should I number my package to be able to provide later a beta4?
gphoto2-2.0beta2 is in the archive today.
So as already discuted here, I will use gphoto2-2.0beta4
If I do something like 2.0beta4-0.dev9
I should be able to
> > I might be missing something, but what is the soname for
> > libgphoto2 ?
> >
>
> Sorry I don't understand your question.
> Could you reformulate your question?
libgphoto2 Package would probably contain
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2 which is a symlink to
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2.0.0 or something
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 06:26:40PM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:35:14AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> > Shame on me.
> > I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell.
> > Then my DH_COMPAT was not set.
>
> Please explain why DH_COMPAT was
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:55:09PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> These are not "standard" executable, see my just posted reply.
Can you send me a small executable like that one in question? I would
really like to take a look what is going on there.
cu
Torsten
pgpSx5Crkfpyf.pgp
De
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:05:26AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Is it not a upstream choice ?
> >
> > But this package include a command-line frontend.
> > Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
> >
> > gphoto2: command-line front-end
> > libgphoto2 : librarie
> Is it not a upstream choice ?
>
> But this package include a command-line frontend.
> Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
>
> gphoto2: command-line front-end
> libgphoto2 : libraries
> libgphoto2-dev : to build others front-ends.
>
> And perhaps a doc packag
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:36:31AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> p Is writing something like:
> Note that this license is not compatible with the GPL. This means that
> you can't redistribute the binary of osh if it is complied with libraries
> licensed under the GPL. The debian package is co
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 10:45:41AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I was saying that
> "DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild"
> is syntactically incorrect, and it looks bad to have it in debian/rules.
Guess I should read the whole thread before writing any comments next
time. Now I see you
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:21:23PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > debian/rules says:
> > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
>
> That won't work, because it is syntactically incorrect,
> and also this is not a place to document how to
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:35:14AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> Shame on me.
> I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell.
> Then my DH_COMPAT was not set.
Please explain why DH_COMPAT was not set? It should be set by the
debian/rules Makefile not before you run debui
> > I might be missing something, but what is the soname for
> > libgphoto2 ?
> >
>
> Sorry I don't understand your question.
> Could you reformulate your question?
libgphoto2 Package would probably contain
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2 which is a symlink to
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2.0.0 or somethin
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye 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
> >
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye 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
> >
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 06:26:40PM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:35:14AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> > Shame on me.
> > I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell.
> > Then my DH_COMPAT was not set.
>
> Please explain why DH_COMPAT wa
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:55:09PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> These are not "standard" executable, see my just posted reply.
Can you send me a small executable like that one in question? I would
really like to take a look what is going on there.
cu
Torsten
msg05330/pgp0.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:05:26AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Is it not a upstream choice ?
> >
> > But this package include a command-line frontend.
> > Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
> >
> > gphoto2: command-line front-end
> > libgphoto2 : librari
> Is it not a upstream choice ?
>
> But this package include a command-line frontend.
> Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
>
> gphoto2: command-line front-end
> libgphoto2 : libraries
> libgphoto2-dev : to build others front-ends.
>
> And perhaps a doc packa
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:21:23PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > debian/rules says:
> > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
>
> That won't work, because it is syntactically incorrect,
> and also this is not a place to document how t
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:36:31AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> p Is writing something like:
> Note that this license is not compatible with the GPL. This means that
> you can't redistribute the binary of osh if it is complied with libraries
> licensed under the GPL. The debian package is c
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 10:45:41AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I was saying that
> "DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild"
> is syntactically incorrect, and it looks bad to have it in debian/rules.
Guess I should read the whole thread before writing any comments next
time. Now I see yo
Title: 새 페이지 1
안녕하세요.
불쑥 메일을 드려서 미안합니다. 좋은 CD가 있어서 소개 드릴까 합니다. 혹 불쾌하셨다면 사과 드립니다.
귀하의 이 메일 이외에는 어떠한 정보도 가지고 있지 않습니다. 단 1회 발송하며 수신 거부를 하실 때는 반송하여
주시면 절대 발송되는 일이 없습니다. 그리고 희망찬 2002년이 되시길 바랍니다.
[컴맹/넷맹 탈출 CD특징- CD 넣고 클릭만 하시면 됩니다!]-내용을 끝까지 읽어보시면 38,000원으로 짭잘한 부업
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:35:14AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> Shame on me.
> I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell.
> Then my DH_COMPAT was not set.
Please explain why DH_COMPAT was not set? It should be set by the
debian/rules Makefile not before you run debu
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye 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
> >
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye 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
> >
Title: »õ ÆäÀÌÁö 1
¾È³çÇϼ¼¿ä.
ºÒ¾¦ ¸ÞÀÏÀ» µå·Á¼ ¹Ì¾ÈÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ÁÁÀº CD°¡ ÀÖ¾î¼ ¼Ò°³ µå¸±±î ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. Ȥ ºÒÄèÇÏ¼Ì´Ù¸é »ç°ú µå¸³´Ï´Ù.
±ÍÇÏÀÇ ÀÌ ¸ÞÀÏ ÀÌ¿Ü¿¡´Â ¾î¶°ÇÑ Á¤º¸µµ °¡Áö°í ÀÖÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. ´Ü 1ȸ ¹ß¼ÛÇÏ¸ç ¼ö½Å °ÅºÎ¸¦ ÇÏ½Ç ¶§´Â ¹Ý¼ÛÇÏ¿©
Áֽøé Àý´ë ¹ß¼ÛµÇ´Â ÀÏÀÌ ¾ø½À´Ï
On 19 Jan 2002 00:02:18 -0500
Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello All,
Hello
> 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.
this is the
On 19 Jan 2002 00:02:18 -0500
Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello All,
Hello
> 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.
this is the
> > 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
> >
31 matches
Mail list logo
