Good evening, all. I just wanted some feedback on how I could improve my two
packages mentioned below.
-- Derek Witt, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
witty-cdplayer: I have written a CD Player that uses cdda2wav as a backend.
This was written to allow skipping CD/DVD-ROM/RW driv
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > Personally, BTW, I would really, really prefer to maintain Free
> > Software, not *only* for political reasons but also because a
> > commercial vendor is obviously the least responsive upstream you can
> > have. And also, not having access t
Good evening, all. I just wanted some feedback on how I could improve my two packages
mentioned below.
-- Derek Witt, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
witty-cdplayer: I have written a CD Player that uses cdda2wav as a backend. This was
written to allow skipping CD/DVD-ROM/RW driv
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > Personally, BTW, I would really, really prefer to maintain Free
> > Software, not *only* for political reasons but also because a
> > commercial vendor is obviously the least responsive upstream you can
> > have. And also, not having access t
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:22:20PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> Well I fully agree with you, but let me explain: Completely by chance
> I took over maintainership of the f-prot-installer package, which is
> in contrib. Since an installer package may easily fail (when the
> vendor changes file nam
On 20030301T132435+0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> Is there a list of removed packages available anywhere, together with
> reasons for the removal?
http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt lists removals starting some
two years ago.
> F-Prot for GNU/Linux _has_ been distributed by others, e.g. by
>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
>
> > if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
> > will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
> > In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there i
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:22:20PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> Well I fully agree with you, but let me explain: Completely by chance
> I took over maintainership of the f-prot-installer package, which is
> in contrib. Since an installer package may easily fail (when the
> vendor changes file nam
On 20030301T132435+0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> Is there a list of removed packages available anywhere, together with
> reasons for the removal?
http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt lists removals starting some
two years ago.
> F-Prot for GNU/Linux _has_ been distributed by others, e.g. by
>
On Sat, 01 Mar 2003, Agney Lopes Roth Ferraz wrote:
> I'm looking for information about debian developer/maintainer.
http://nm.debian.org
> I read in debian page that the only way to became maintainer is developing
> some nice program, but I have two friends that are only who make the .deb
> pack
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
>
> > if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
> > will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
> > In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there i
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:25:16PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:41:18AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
> > > In this case, should the package just document what the use
> > > should do (it will be different for each MTA) or at least
> > > detect which MTA is installed and
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:46:58PM -0500, Kevin J. Kalupson wrote:
> Checking the license on some software the I would like to add.
> Does this copyright meet the debian requirements. I'm thinking this package
> would end up in "non-free" if it does qualify.
> /*** Copyright Notice *
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
> will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
> In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a "warning" about usage
> restrictions but no defini
On Sat, 01 Mar 2003, Agney Lopes Roth Ferraz wrote:
> I'm looking for information about debian developer/maintainer.
http://nm.debian.org
> I read in debian page that the only way to became maintainer is developing
> some nice program, but I have two friends that are only who make the .deb
> pack
> I am (have already) building a new package from the cvs tree, but my question
> is:
>
> Shall I run the autobuild (called bootstrap) on my system and go with the
> package using those results or I shall modify my debian/rules to create the
> Makefile.in and friends during compilation time?
>
>
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:25:16PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:41:18AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
> > > In this case, should the package just document what the use
> > > should do (it will be different for each MTA) or at least
> > > detect which MTA is installed and
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:46:58PM -0500, Kevin J. Kalupson wrote:
> Checking the license on some software the I would like to add.
> Does this copyright meet the debian requirements. I'm thinking this package
> would end up in "non-free" if it does qualify.
> /*** Copyright Notice *
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
> will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
> In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a "warning" about usage
> restrictions but no defini
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:42:37PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> You should really ask Russell Coker on -devel. There may well be a
> policy to limit postinst scripts to the things that postinst scripts
> typically do.
Thanks I shall.
I was thinking was that a postinst script, or package inst
Steve Kemp wrote:
> As an aside I wonder how well SE-Linux, or the other improved
> security patches handle installation issues? I know that by installing
> a random package you're effectively giving the package maintainer
> root upon your box.
>
> I'd imagine that a package installation p
Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> > Hmm, dh_make is trying to do a similar approach. Why not use that way?
> I like to have the original .tar.gz exactly as I downloaded it. dh_make
> unpacks the source and repacks it to a new .orig.tar.gz.
Why would dh_make go out of its way to violate best practices li
> I am (have already) building a new package from the cvs tree, but my question
> is:
>
> Shall I run the autobuild (called bootstrap) on my system and go with the
> package using those results or I shall modify my debian/rules to create the
> Makefile.in and friends during compilation time?
>
>
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:42:37PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> You should really ask Russell Coker on -devel. There may well be a
> policy to limit postinst scripts to the things that postinst scripts
> typically do.
Thanks I shall.
I was thinking was that a postinst script, or package inst
Steve Kemp wrote:
> As an aside I wonder how well SE-Linux, or the other improved
> security patches handle installation issues? I know that by installing
> a random package you're effectively giving the package maintainer
> root upon your box.
>
> I'd imagine that a package installation p
Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> > Hmm, dh_make is trying to do a similar approach. Why not use that way?
> I like to have the original .tar.gz exactly as I downloaded it. dh_make
> unpacks the source and repacks it to a new .orig.tar.gz.
Why would dh_make go out of its way to violate best practices li
Agney,
> I'm looking for information about debian developer/maintainer.
A maintainer is someone who maintains a package, while a developer has
an account on the Debian machines and permission to upload. These two
are basically distinct (i.e. you can maintain a package without being a
developer an
Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frank Gevaerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
>
> Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
> various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into
> non-fre
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> * Add your file to the package somewhere
>
> * Modify debian/rules (or possibly one of the debhelper config files
> if it's using debhelper) to install your file at a particular
> location
[...]
Is using the install(1) command recommended, o
Agney,
> I'm looking for information about debian developer/maintainer.
A maintainer is someone who maintains a package, while a developer has
an account on the Debian machines and permission to upload. These two
are basically distinct (i.e. you can maintain a package without being a
developer an
Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frank Gevaerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
>
> Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
> various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into
> non-fre
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> * Add your file to the package somewhere
>
> * Modify debian/rules (or possibly one of the debhelper config files
> if it's using debhelper) to install your file at a particular
> location
[...]
Is using the install(1) command recommended, o
Hi mentors,
I'm looking for information about debian developer/maintainer.
I read in debian page that the only way to became maintainer is developing some
nice program, but I have two friends that are only who make the .deb package.
The situation is: I don't have a nice package develped by me, b
33 matches
Mail list logo
