On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 02:59:17PM +0200, Helios de Creisquer wrote:
> Without any crystal ball, I am able to say that an applicant waiting
> since 3 months at this stage will have a total time of waiting superior
> to 3 months for this stage when his complete application will be done.
>
> A
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:28:07PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> On Friday 16 Aug 2002 1:14 pm, Craig Small wrote:
>
> > The statistics are for the people who passed each checkpoint in the last
> > three months.
>
> Rather at a tangent, but it appears from reading the archives of
> debian-newmain
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:28:53PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Hi, how can I easily determine the host architecture string in a
> maintainer script?
'dpkg --print-installation-architecture' should do it.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, how can I easily determine the host architecture string in a
maintainer script? dpkg-architecture is in the dpkg-dev package,
which I obviously cannot depend on. I could massage the output of
uname or arch, but that seems too ugly (and I don't even know what all
the possible outputs are).
-
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:16:57 +0100, Paul Cupis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Friday 16 August 2002 18:10, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I am wondering how cvs-buildpackage fits into this. From what I
>> understand, cvs-inject checks in the unpacked upstream tarball into
>> the CVS, puts an upstream_version
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:28:53PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Hi, how can I easily determine the host architecture string in a
> maintainer script?
'dpkg --print-installation-architecture' should do it.
--
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Hi, how can I easily determine the host architecture string in a
maintainer script? dpkg-architecture is in the dpkg-dev package,
which I obviously cannot depend on. I could massage the output of
uname or arch, but that seems too ugly (and I don't even know what all
the possible outputs are).
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:16:57 +0100, Paul Cupis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Friday 16 August 2002 18:10, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I am wondering how cvs-buildpackage fits into this. From what I
>> understand, cvs-inject checks in the unpacked upstream tarball into
>> the CVS, puts an upstream_versio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 16 August 2002 18:10, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:51:43 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> >It's better to use
> >the pristine source tarball provided by upstream where possible and not
> >needlessly repack it
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am wondering how cvs-buildpackage fits into this. From what I
> understand, cvs-inject checks in the unpacked upstream tarball into
> the CVS, puts an upstream_version tag on it. cvs-buildpackage then
> creates the orig.tar.gz from the CVS sources. Isn't
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:51:43 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>It's better to use
>the pristine source tarball provided by upstream where possible and not
>needlessly repack it, since this has nice properties like allowing
>people to compare md5sums easily.
I am wondering how cvs-bui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 16 August 2002 18:10, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:51:43 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> >It's better to use
> >the pristine source tarball provided by upstream where possible and not
> >needlessly repack i
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am wondering how cvs-buildpackage fits into this. From what I
> understand, cvs-inject checks in the unpacked upstream tarball into
> the CVS, puts an upstream_version tag on it. cvs-buildpackage then
> creates the orig.tar.gz from the CVS sources. Isn't
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:51:43 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>It's better to use
>the pristine source tarball provided by upstream where possible and not
>needlessly repack it, since this has nice properties like allowing
>people to compare md5sums easily.
I am wondering how cvs-bu
On Friday 16 Aug 2002 1:51 pm, Colin Watson wrote:
> dpkg-source sorts this out, so don't worry about it. It's better to use
> the pristine source tarball provided by upstream where possible and not
> needlessly repack it, since this has nice properties like allowing
> people to compare md5sums ea
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 10:14:24PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:45:14AM +0200, Helios de Creisquer wrote:
> > I was wondering about the 'statistics' on nm.debian.org: Seems there
> > are far away from reality, at least for the "Maximal" days of the
> > "Awaiting DAM App
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:32:06PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> I have just prepared a new release of a package I am maintaining when I
> noticed I had forgotten to rename the upstream directroy in the tarball.
> Upstream calls the source directory "clisp". In the last release,
> clisp_2.28.orig.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:28:07PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> Rather at a tangent, but it appears from reading the archives of
> debian-newmaint that no NM has been accepted as a developer since week ending
> 12 May. Is this correct?
It doesn't appear so - there appears to have been at least o
* Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-16 13:28]:
> Rather at a tangent, but it appears from reading the archives of
> debian-newmaint that no NM has been accepted as a developer since
> week ending 12 May. Is this correct?
No, just wait for the next report (on Sunday).
--
Martin Michlmayr
[E
I have just prepared a new release of a package I am maintaining when I
noticed I had forgotten to rename the upstream directroy in the tarball.
Upstream calls the source directory "clisp". In the last release,
clisp_2.28.orig.tar.gz, the source directory was called "clisp-2.28". I
missed this
On Friday 16 Aug 2002 1:14 pm, Craig Small wrote:
> The statistics are for the people who passed each checkpoint in the last
> three months.
Rather at a tangent, but it appears from reading the archives of
debian-newmaint that no NM has been accepted as a developer since week ending
12 May. Is
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:45:14AM +0200, Helios de Creisquer wrote:
> I was wondering about the 'statistics' on nm.debian.org: Seems there are
> far away from reality, at least for the "Maximal" days of the "Awaiting
> DAM Approval" stage:
No, you just don't understand them.
> Or the statistics
On Friday 16 Aug 2002 1:51 pm, Colin Watson wrote:
> dpkg-source sorts this out, so don't worry about it. It's better to use
> the pristine source tarball provided by upstream where possible and not
> needlessly repack it, since this has nice properties like allowing
> people to compare md5sums e
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 10:14:24PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:45:14AM +0200, Helios de Creisquer wrote:
> > I was wondering about the 'statistics' on nm.debian.org: Seems there
> > are far away from reality, at least for the "Maximal" days of the
> > "Awaiting DAM Ap
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:32:06PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> I have just prepared a new release of a package I am maintaining when I
> noticed I had forgotten to rename the upstream directroy in the tarball.
> Upstream calls the source directory "clisp". In the last release,
> clisp_2.28.orig
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:28:07PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> Rather at a tangent, but it appears from reading the archives of
> debian-newmaint that no NM has been accepted as a developer since week ending
> 12 May. Is this correct?
It doesn't appear so - there appears to have been at least
* Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-16 13:28]:
> Rather at a tangent, but it appears from reading the archives of
> debian-newmaint that no NM has been accepted as a developer since
> week ending 12 May. Is this correct?
No, just wait for the next report (on Sunday).
--
Martin Michlmayr
[
I have just prepared a new release of a package I am maintaining when I
noticed I had forgotten to rename the upstream directroy in the tarball.
Upstream calls the source directory "clisp". In the last release,
clisp_2.28.orig.tar.gz, the source directory was called "clisp-2.28". I
missed thi
On Friday 16 Aug 2002 1:14 pm, Craig Small wrote:
> The statistics are for the people who passed each checkpoint in the last
> three months.
Rather at a tangent, but it appears from reading the archives of
debian-newmaint that no NM has been accepted as a developer since week ending
12 May. Is
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:45:14AM +0200, Helios de Creisquer wrote:
> I was wondering about the 'statistics' on nm.debian.org: Seems there are
> far away from reality, at least for the "Maximal" days of the "Awaiting
> DAM Approval" stage:
No, you just don't understand them.
> Or the statistic
30 matches
Mail list logo
