On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:20:26PM -0500, John Lightsey wrote:
> A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the
> upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian
> without heavy modification of the upstream version. I'm not going to say
> exac
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 11:34 pm, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> No. We don't hide problems. If you expect help, expect it to be given in
> public fora. Section 2.3 is a little broad for us to be able to guess what
> the problem is and give specific advice.
To be honest, I wasn't trying to hide t
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:20:26PM -0500, John Lightsey wrote:
> A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the
> upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian
> without heavy modification of the upstream version. I'm not going to say
> exac
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:36:45PM +0200, Bruno Rodrigues wrote:
> I need a sponsor to update two packages and close some bugs:
>
> mantis (0.17.5-7+1) unstable; urgency=low
> .
>* Only reconfigure if config.php doesn't exists, avoiding overwriting
>* it
> (Closes: #199985)
>* U
On Sep 9, Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> My immediate question:
> I need to build a dual binary (a runtime and a development)
> package from a single source package, called "wcstools",
> which I am creating with dh_make and dpkg-buildpackage.
>
> I've seen various references to
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:36:45PM +0200, Bruno Rodrigues wrote:
> I need a sponsor to update two packages and close some bugs:
>
> mantis (0.17.5-7+1) unstable; urgency=low
> .
>* Only reconfigure if config.php doesn't exists, avoiding overwriting
>* it
> (Closes: #199985)
>* U
On Sep 9, Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> My immediate question:
> I need to build a dual binary (a runtime and a development)
> package from a single source package, called "wcstools",
> which I am creating with dh_make and dpkg-buildpackage.
>
> I've seen various references to
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 02:34 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> My immediate question:
Um, I'm reading the debhelper man page -- is it possible
that this is as simple as using the "m" option on dh_make
and then naming all the control files wcstools.rules,
wcstools-dev.rules, etc (i.e. foo -> pack
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 02:34 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> My immediate question:
Um, I'm reading the debhelper man page -- is it possible
that this is as simple as using the "m" option on dh_make
and then naming all the control files wcstools.rules,
wcstools-dev.rules, etc (i.e. foo -> pack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Lightsey wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the
> upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian
> without heavy modification of the upstream version.
Please f
Ismael Valladolid Torres dijo [Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:54:18PM +0200]:
> Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> packaging environment?
>
> I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance o
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:36:45PM +0200, Bruno Rodrigues wrote:
> I need a sponsor to update two packages and close some bugs:
>
> mantis (0.17.5-7+1) unstable; urgency=low
[...]
> php4-imagick (0.9.7-0+2) unstable; urgency=low
I'm looking at these now.
--
Colin Watson
* Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 21:56]:
> I've seen various references to how these should be "built
> in debian/wcstools and debian/wcstools-dev" instead of
> just in "debian/tmp" -- but I *haven't* found out how to
> make that happen. Is there something else I should be
If you us
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Lightsey wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the
> upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian
> without heavy modification of the upstream version.
Please f
Ismael Valladolid Torres dijo [Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:54:18PM +0200]:
> Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> packaging environment?
>
> I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance o
My immediate question:
I need to build a dual binary (a runtime and a development)
package from a single source package, called "wcstools",
which I am creating with dh_make and dpkg-buildpackage.
I've seen various references to how these should be "built
in debian/wcstools and debian/wcstools-dev
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:36:45PM +0200, Bruno Rodrigues wrote:
> I need a sponsor to update two packages and close some bugs:
>
> mantis (0.17.5-7+1) unstable; urgency=low
[...]
> php4-imagick (0.9.7-0+2) unstable; urgency=low
I'm looking at these now.
--
Colin Watson
* Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 21:56]:
> I've seen various references to how these should be "built
> in debian/wcstools and debian/wcstools-dev" instead of
> just in "debian/tmp" -- but I *haven't* found out how to
> make that happen. Is there something else I should be
If you us
Hi there,
A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the
upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian
without heavy modification of the upstream version. I'm not going to say
exactly what the problem is here, but it definitely doesn't meet
My immediate question:
I need to build a dual binary (a runtime and a development)
package from a single source package, called "wcstools",
which I am creating with dh_make and dpkg-buildpackage.
I've seen various references to how these should be "built
in debian/wcstools and debian/wcstools-dev
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unst
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unst
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unstable version of a libr
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unstable version
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
> I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of them seem to have
> been packaged using woody, some of them seem to have been packaged
> using sid. For those in the first group, a simple apt-get build-dep
> satisfies build dependen
It seems to me that randomplay does everything you're requesting (below).
If it's something people are looking for, doesn't it make it potentially
a good candidate for Debian?
Incidentally, my package "shorlfilter" recently entered unstable. The
main script is only about 100 lines, yet it seems t
Hi there,
A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the
upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian
without heavy modification of the upstream version. I'm not going to say
exactly what the problem is here, but it definitely doesn't meet
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable version of a library, choosing the stable version would
not make the path of th
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:10, Santiago Vila escribe:
> They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
> anywhere that they are actually built under sid. What is really
> "mandatory" is that uploaded packages have the dependencies and
> build-dependencies wh
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 13:05, Andreas Barth escribe:
> Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
Packages must be uploaded to sid. So, they normally are built on sid.
This makes more sense to me.
I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of t
Hi,
I'm the lead maintainer of the Perl Oak Component Tree and the Forest
Web Application Builder (http://perl-oak.sourceforge.net) and I've
packaged the entire library and the application, now I need a sponsor
for them, they're available at
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=32
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unst
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unst
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unstable version of a libr
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unstable version
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
> I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of them seem to have
> been packaged using woody, some of them seem to have been packaged
> using sid. For those in the first group, a simple apt-get build-dep
> satisfies build dependen
It seems to me that randomplay does everything you're requesting (below).
If it's something people are looking for, doesn't it make it potentially
a good candidate for Debian?
Incidentally, my package "shorlfilter" recently entered unstable. The
main script is only about 100 lines, yet it seems t
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable version of a library, choosing the stable version would
not make the path of th
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:10, Santiago Vila escribe:
> They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
> anywhere that they are actually built under sid. What is really
> "mandatory" is that uploaded packages have the dependencies and
> build-dependencies wh
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 13:05, Andreas Barth escribe:
> Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
Packages must be uploaded to sid. So, they normally are built on sid.
This makes more sense to me.
I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of t
Hi,
I'm the lead maintainer of the Perl Oak Component Tree and the Forest
Web Application Builder (http://perl-oak.sourceforge.net) and I've
packaged the entire library and the application, now I need a sponsor
for them, they're available at
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=32
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:25:03AM +0200, Frank K??ster wrote:
>
> But what I think is a bug is that the package creates its own
> subdirectory in /etc, but doesn't use it. However, I should have a
> closer look at the policy before bothering the BTS
>
It does use it. I believe there is also
* Santiago Vila ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 14:20]:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
> They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
> anywhere [...]
>
> Whether this means you need a sid e
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
> > Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> > packaging environment?
> >
> > I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> > packages against stabl
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:25:03AM +0200, Frank K??ster wrote:
>
> But what I think is a bug is that the package creates its own
> subdirectory in /etc, but doesn't use it. However, I should have a
> closer look at the policy before bothering the BTS
>
It does use it. I believe there is also
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
> Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> packaging environment?
>
> I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance of
> gett
El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2003, a las 17:54, Matthew Palmer escribe:
> I'd appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
While reading the FAQ I find:
> 3. Put a package together, built against a current version of sid.
Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
pac
* Santiago Vila ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 14:20]:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
> They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
> anywhere [...]
>
> Whether this means you need a sid e
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
> > Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> > packaging environment?
> >
> > I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> > packages against stabl
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:45:37PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 05:37:40AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Adam Kessel wrote:
> > > > I've written a fairly simple command-line shuffle music file player.
> > >
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
> Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> packaging environment?
>
> I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance of
> gett
El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2003, a las 17:54, Matthew Palmer escribe:
> I'd appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
While reading the FAQ I find:
> 3. Put a package together, built against a current version of sid.
Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
pac
Quoting Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2003-09-09 00:50:24 BST):
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:22:02PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
> > I recently read about target-specific variables in make, so I thought I
> > could
> > do this:
> >
> > pkg1-stamp: pkg1
> > pkg2-stamp: pkg2
> >
> > %-stamp: $(@:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:45:40AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> questions about them). In the case of an upload queue, you may have to
> upload a .commands file to delete the extra files; there's documentation
> of this somewhere ...
Or just sit there and watch the mails until they stop - the que
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:41:03PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Andrei Mitrofanow wrote:
> > nobody interestet to fvwm-themes?
> > http://smilebef.homelinux.org/~smilebef/
>
> [Reading my note before sending it I see it sounds harsh. I don't
> mean it that way. I mean it constructively so that you
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:45:37PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 05:37:40AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Adam Kessel wrote:
> > > > I've written a fairly simple command-line shuffle music file player.
> > >
Quoting Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2003-09-09 00:50:24 BST):
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:22:02PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
> > I recently read about target-specific variables in make, so I thought I could
> > do this:
> >
> > pkg1-stamp: pkg1
> > pkg2-stamp: pkg2
> >
> > %-stamp: $(@:%-sta
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:45:40AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> questions about them). In the case of an upload queue, you may have to
> upload a .commands file to delete the extra files; there's documentation
> of this somewhere ...
Or just sit there and watch the mails until they stop - the que
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:41:03PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Andrei Mitrofanow wrote:
> > nobody interestet to fvwm-themes?
> > http://smilebef.homelinux.org/~smilebef/
>
> [Reading my note before sending it I see it sounds harsh. I don't
> mean it that way. I mean it constructively so that you
59 matches
Mail list logo
