On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:04:16 -0300
Carlos Laviola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A package that I maintain -- mp3blaster -- doesn't include libsidplay1
> as a dependency, even though it links against it. I hadn't noticed that
> because I thought everything was working fine, as I hadn't tri
http://www.bunkus.org/videotools/ogmtools/
it states:
"These tools allow information about (ogminfo) or extraction
from (ogmdemux) or creation of (ogmmerge) OGG media streams.Note that
I'll use OGM for "OGG media streams"
i hope it helps.
/Mikkel Kristensen
http://www.bunkus.org/videotools/ogmtools/
it states:
"These tools allow information about (ogminfo) or extraction
from (ogmdemux) or creation of (ogmmerge) OGG media streams.Note that
I'll use OGM for "OGG media streams"
i hope it helps.
/Mikkel Kristensen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Marco Presi wrote:
> My problem is this: for the two packeges I want to have two
> different man pages (in fact "server-enhanced" has more config
> options that "server") but it would nice if the man pages could have
> the same name ("server.conf.5")
> I don't know how to resolve t
Hello all,
This has come up before but I was unsuccessful following the suggestions
(changing the expiry date of the key)
Some time ago I decided to create a new key since my first one was created
when I didn't know enough about GPG and did a few silly things. Since
then I have been unable to ge
Drew Parsons wrote:
> I'm getting an error from dh_builddeb when trying to build a new package.
> The build was working previously, but today it started failing, and doesn't
> really say why. Are there any known problem with dh_builddeb?
No. It is a very thin wrapper around dpkg --build
> So dh_
"Marco Presi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My problem is this: for the two packeges I want to have two
> different man pages (in fact "server-enhanced" has more config
> options that "server") but it would nice if the man pages could have
> the same name ("server.conf.5")
> I don't
Marco Presi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-08 22:45:23 +0200]:
> I am packaging a multiple binary from a single sources. The two
> binaries provides the same server functionality and differs just for
> compilation options, let's say:
>
> "server" and "server-enhanced".
Are they overlapping pac
On Sun, 08 Sep 2002, Marco Presi wrote:
> I am packaging a multiple binary from a single sources. The two
> binaries provides the same server functionality and differs just for
> compilation options, let's say:
>
> "server" and "server-enhanced".
>
> My problem is this: for the two pac
Marco Presi wrote:
> My problem is this: for the two packeges I want to have two
> different man pages (in fact "server-enhanced" has more config
> options that "server") but it would nice if the man pages could have
> the same name ("server.conf.5")
> I don't know how to resolve
Hello all,
This has come up before but I was unsuccessful following the suggestions
(changing the expiry date of the key)
Some time ago I decided to create a new key since my first one was created
when I didn't know enough about GPG and did a few silly things. Since
then I have been unable to g
Hi mentors!!
I am packaging a multiple binary from a single sources. The two
binaries provides the same server functionality and differs just for
compilation options, let's say:
"server" and "server-enhanced".
My problem is this: for the two packeges I want to have two
different m
Drew Parsons wrote:
> I'm getting an error from dh_builddeb when trying to build a new package.
> The build was working previously, but today it started failing, and doesn't
> really say why. Are there any known problem with dh_builddeb?
No. It is a very thin wrapper around dpkg --build
> So dh
"Marco Presi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My problem is this: for the two packeges I want to have two
> different man pages (in fact "server-enhanced" has more config
> options that "server") but it would nice if the man pages could have
> the same name ("server.conf.5")
> I don'
Marco Presi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-08 22:45:23 +0200]:
> I am packaging a multiple binary from a single sources. The two
> binaries provides the same server functionality and differs just for
> compilation options, let's say:
>
> "server" and "server-enhanced".
Are they overlapping pa
On Sun, 08 Sep 2002, Marco Presi wrote:
> I am packaging a multiple binary from a single sources. The two
> binaries provides the same server functionality and differs just for
> compilation options, let's say:
>
> "server" and "server-enhanced".
>
> My problem is this: for the two pa
Marc Leeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> deb http://lesbos.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~mleeman/debian unstable/
> deb-src http://lesbos.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~mleeman/debian unstable/
Your chances to find a sponsor are better if you tell us what the
ogmtools do. Pasting your package description here woul
Marco Kuhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> wimsey:~# apt-get --purge remove mozart mozart-contrib mozart-doc-html
[...]
> I guess there is some problem with the dependencies here, but I
> am a little lost in finding exactly what it is. Can you help me?
Could you add "-s" to that call and see h
Edd Dumbill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My current thinking is to make two packages, bluez-bluefw and
> bluez-bluefw-firmware. The latter would have to go into non-free, and
> the former into contrib as it requires a non-free package to function.
>
> Does this sound OK?
It is most correct, ye
Hi mentors!!
I am packaging a multiple binary from a single sources. The two
binaries provides the same server functionality and differs just for
compilation options, let's say:
"server" and "server-enhanced".
My problem is this: for the two packeges I want to have two
different
Marc Leeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> deb http://lesbos.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~mleeman/debian unstable/
> deb-src http://lesbos.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~mleeman/debian unstable/
Your chances to find a sponsor are better if you tell us what the
ogmtools do. Pasting your package description here wou
Edd Dumbill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My current thinking is to make two packages, bluez-bluefw and
> bluez-bluefw-firmware. The latter would have to go into non-free, and
> the former into contrib as it requires a non-free package to function.
>
> Does this sound OK?
It is most correct, y
Marco Kuhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> wimsey:~# apt-get --purge remove mozart mozart-contrib mozart-doc-html
[...]
> I guess there is some problem with the dependencies here, but I
> am a little lost in finding exactly what it is. Can you help me?
Could you add "-s" to that call and see
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.06.0025 +0200]:
>> I need a sponsor for tcpreen:
> i'll sponsor you, except i don't really know what sponsoring entails
> other than uploading. maybe some mentor can tell me.
You have to look at th
also sprach Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.06.0025 +0200]:
> I need a sponsor for tcpreen:
i'll sponsor you, except i don't really know what sponsoring entails
other than uploading. maybe some mentor can tell me.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ e
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.06.0025 +0200]:
>> I need a sponsor for tcpreen:
> i'll sponsor you, except i don't really know what sponsoring entails
> other than uploading. maybe some mentor can tell me.
You have to look at t
also sprach Oliver Kurth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.06.0025 +0200]:
> I need a sponsor for tcpreen:
i'll sponsor you, except i don't really know what sponsoring entails
other than uploading. maybe some mentor can tell me.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\
I'm getting an error from dh_builddeb when trying to build a new package.
The build was working previously, but today it started failing, and doesn't
really say why. Are there any known problem with dh_builddeb?
The relevant part of the log (from fakeroot debian/rules binary), building
the deb pa
I'm getting an error from dh_builddeb when trying to build a new package.
The build was working previously, but today it started failing, and doesn't
really say why. Are there any known problem with dh_builddeb?
The relevant part of the log (from fakeroot debian/rules binary), building
the deb p
29 matches
Mail list logo
