reactivate myself

Looking to reactivate myself, gradually. Can someone point me to the current procedure, Thanks. Please cc replies to me. - bri -- Recursivity. Call back if it happens again.

Re: reactivate myself

At Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 05:20:14PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > Since you're still in db.debian.org, and not listed as an emeritus or > disabled maintainer, I think all you'd have to do is get a new key in the > keyring and you'd be away. That should just be generate a key, get it > signed, and

Re: Question about Debian Policy 6.1

Hi. Carlos Perelló Marín wrote: > My question is... if dpkg-build "fixes" it automatically, should we > change the execution bit inside debian/ directory? (lintian does not > detect it as a policy violation and debhelper creates the templates > without the execution bit) The debian/* files are com

should main package binary manpage be symlinked to package name?

If the main binary in a package is named "x" and the package is named "x-package", should I ship (a) a manpage x.1 ? (b) a manpage x-package.[1-9]? I'm pretty sure of (a). I think the answer to (b) is no, but I'm not sure? If yes to (b), what section? Thanks

Re: reactivate myself

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 12:22:01AM -0500, Brian Russo wrote: > Looking to reactivate myself, gradually. > Can someone point me to the current procedure, Thanks. Since you're still in db.debian.org, and not listed as an emeritus or disabled maintainer, I think all you'd have to do is get a new key

Re: should main package binary manpage be symlinked to package name?

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 08:29:08PM -0800, Number Six wrote: > If the main binary in a package is named "x" and the package is named > "x-package", should I ship > > (a) a manpage x.1 ? > (b) a manpage x-package.[1-9]? > > I'm pretty sure of (a). I think the answer to (b) is no, but I'm not > s

reactivate myself

Looking to reactivate myself, gradually. Can someone point me to the current procedure, Thanks. Please cc replies to me. - bri -- Recursivity. Call back if it happens again. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM

should main package binary manpage be symlinked to package name?

If the main binary in a package is named "x" and the package is named "x-package", should I ship (a) a manpage x.1 ? (b) a manpage x-package.[1-9]? I'm pretty sure of (a). I think the answer to (b) is no, but I'm not sure? If yes to (b), what section? Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E

Question about Debian Policy 6.1

Hi I have a doubt about the point 6.1, it says: "These scripts are the files preinst, postinst, prerm and postrm in the control area of the package. They must be proper executable files; if they are scripts (which is recommended), they must start with the usual #! convention. They should be readab

Re: RFS: mimms - MMS (mms://) streaming media download utility

On Monday 15 March 2004 11:03 pm, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 22:24, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > > On Sunday 07 March 2004 9:59 pm, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > I'm looking for a sponsor for the mimms package. This upload > > > would close ITP bug #221806. >

Re: wvdial prompts "by hand"... is that release critical?

On Tuesday 16 March 2004 18:23, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:16:48PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > > See bug 219151. The wvdial package prompts the user by hand during > > installation instead of using debconf. Isn't this against the policy? > > Only a "should", not a "must".

Re: dh_make generates Stds. version 3.6.0 but latest is 3.6.1

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 11:12:05PM -0800, Number Six wrote: > If dh_make generates debian/control at Standards-Version: 3.6.0, and the > latest Standards-Version: is 3.6.1, how can I verify my project actually > meets the correct standards (if I just bump the number)? It's a problem I have to de

Re: wvdial prompts "by hand"... is that release critical?

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:16:48PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > See bug 219151. The wvdial package prompts the user by hand during > installation instead of using debconf. Isn't this against the policy? Only a "should", not a "must". > If so, shouldn't that bug be release critical instead of

wvdial prompts "by hand"... is that release critical?

See bug 219151. The wvdial package prompts the user by hand during installation instead of using debconf. Isn't this against the policy? If so, shouldn't that bug be release critical instead of important? Is it worth trying to change that so that this gets fixed for Sarge? http://bugs.debian.or

Re: RFS: xerces -- or -- request for NMU

> In a private email to Ivo I offered to co-maintain them under the > umbrella of the Debian XML/SGML group (see my signature for more > info). Ivo told me that xerces already its own project on Alioth > but that it might be better to move it over to the Debian XML/SGML > group. > > I

Question about Debian Policy 6.1

Hi I have a doubt about the point 6.1, it says: "These scripts are the files preinst, postinst, prerm and postrm in the control area of the package. They must be proper executable files; if they are scripts (which is recommended), they must start with the usual #! convention. They should be readab

Re: RFS: mimms - MMS (mms://) streaming media download utility

On Monday 15 March 2004 11:03 pm, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 22:24, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > > On Sunday 07 March 2004 9:59 pm, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > I'm looking for a sponsor for the mimms package. This upload > > > would close ITP bug #221806. >

Re: wvdial prompts "by hand"... is that release critical?

On Tuesday 16 March 2004 18:23, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:16:48PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > > See bug 219151. The wvdial package prompts the user by hand during > > installation instead of using debconf. Isn't this against the policy? > > Only a "should", not a "must".

Re: dh_make generates Stds. version 3.6.0 but latest is 3.6.1

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 11:12:05PM -0800, Number Six wrote: > If dh_make generates debian/control at Standards-Version: 3.6.0, and the > latest Standards-Version: is 3.6.1, how can I verify my project actually > meets the correct standards (if I just bump the number)? It's a problem I have to de

Re: wvdial prompts "by hand"... is that release critical?

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:16:48PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > See bug 219151. The wvdial package prompts the user by hand during > installation instead of using debconf. Isn't this against the policy? Only a "should", not a "must". > If so, shouldn't that bug be release critical instead of

wvdial prompts "by hand"... is that release critical?

See bug 219151. The wvdial package prompts the user by hand during installation instead of using debconf. Isn't this against the policy? If so, shouldn't that bug be release critical instead of important? Is it worth trying to change that so that this gets fixed for Sarge? http://bugs.debian.or

Re: adopting NEdit

Hello, Jesus Climent agreed to sponsor me for the package NEdit. Thanks to him. Regards, Alexandre Pineau -- Il vente, c'est le vent de la mer qui nous tourmente. - Pierre Mac Orlan http://alexandre.pineau.free.fr/

Re: RFS: xerces -- or -- request for NMU

> In a private email to Ivo I offered to co-maintain them under the > umbrella of the Debian XML/SGML group (see my signature for more > info). Ivo told me that xerces already its own project on Alioth > but that it might be better to move it over to the Debian XML/SGML > group. > > I

RFS: gtans - Tangram (puzzle) game using GTK+

Dear mentors, I'd like to adopt the recently orphaned[1] package 'gtans'[2]. These are the specs: Package name: gtans Version : 1.2 Upstream: Philippe Banwarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> URL : http://gtans.sourceforge.net/ License : GPLv2 Long Description: The T

Re: adopting NEdit

Hello, Jesus Climent agreed to sponsor me for the package NEdit. Thanks to him. Regards, Alexandre Pineau -- Il vente, c'est le vent de la mer qui nous tourmente. - Pierre Mac Orlan http://alexandre.pineau.free.fr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject

RFS: gtans - Tangram (puzzle) game using GTK+

Dear mentors, I'd like to adopt the recently orphaned[1] package 'gtans'[2]. These are the specs: Package name: gtans Version : 1.2 Upstream: Philippe Banwarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> URL : http://gtans.sourceforge.net/ License : GPLv2 Long Description: The T

Re: Compiling and linking libraries statically into one binary

Am Dienstag, 16. März 2004 16:08 schrieb Geert Stappers: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 03:55:44PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > > Hi list, > > > > > > I just try to re-package cpyhesis-cpp to link two upstream > > libraries staticly. This means I have three upstream tarballs and > > want to generate one

Re: Compiling and linking libraries statically into one binary

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 03:55:44PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > Hi list, > > > I just try to re-package cpyhesis-cpp to link two upstream libraries > staticly. This means I have three upstream tarballs and want to > generate one debian package from them. I just got no idea and no hint > on the

Compiling and linking libraries statically into one binary

Hi list, I just try to re-package cpyhesis-cpp to link two upstream libraries staticly. This means I have three upstream tarballs and want to generate one debian package from them. I just got no idea and no hint on the web on how to do it. I already get it working to compile cyphesis-cpp from

Re: Compiling and linking libraries statically into one binary

Am Dienstag, 16. März 2004 16:08 schrieb Geert Stappers: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 03:55:44PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > > Hi list, > > > > > > I just try to re-package cpyhesis-cpp to link two upstream > > libraries staticly. This means I have three upstream tarballs and > > want to generate one

Re: Compiling and linking libraries statically into one binary

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 03:55:44PM +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > Hi list, > > > I just try to re-package cpyhesis-cpp to link two upstream libraries > staticly. This means I have three upstream tarballs and want to > generate one debian package from them. I just got no idea and no hint > on the

packaging siefs

Hello. I would like to package SieFS (virtual filesystem for accessing memory of Siemens mobiles). It's related to #238314 It depends on FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace), which is distributed in Debian as source file which should be compiled by users. And now I'm pretty confused... how could I pre

Compiling and linking libraries statically into one binary

Hi list, I just try to re-package cpyhesis-cpp to link two upstream libraries staticly. This means I have three upstream tarballs and want to generate one debian package from them. I just got no idea and no hint on the web on how to do it. I already get it working to compile cyphesis-cpp from

Re: RFS: mozilla-firefox-locale-uk -- Mozilla Firefox Ukrainian Language/Region Package

Alexander Winston wrote: Here's what Linda has to say: V: Processing file: mozilla-firefox-locale-uk_0.8-1_all.deb E: mozilla-firefox-locale-uk; File /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/chrome/UA.jar contained in /usr/lib of Architecture: all package. Yes, I know it. But I am not able to fix it until mo

packaging siefs

Hello. I would like to package SieFS (virtual filesystem for accessing memory of Siemens mobiles). It's related to #238314 It depends on FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace), which is distributed in Debian as source file which should be compiled by users. And now I'm pretty confused... how could I pre

Re: RFS: mozilla-firefox-locale-uk -- Mozilla Firefox Ukrainian Language/Region Package

Alexander Winston wrote: Here's what Linda has to say: V: Processing file: mozilla-firefox-locale-uk_0.8-1_all.deb E: mozilla-firefox-locale-uk; File /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/chrome/UA.jar contained in /usr/lib of Architecture: all package. Yes, I know it. But I am not able to fix it until mozill

Re: dh_make generates Stds. version 3.6.0 but latest is 3.6.1

Number Six <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > If dh_make generates debian/control at Standards-Version: 3.6.0, and the > latest Standards-Version: is 3.6.1, how can I verify my project actually > meets the correct standards (if I just bump the number)? /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checkli

Re: dh_make generates Stds. version 3.6.0 but latest is 3.6.1

On 2004-03-16 Number Six <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If dh_make generates debian/control at Standards-Version: 3.6.0, and > the latest Standards-Version: is 3.6.1, how can I verify my project > actually meets the correct standards (if I just bump the number)? > Can a tool do it? No. Check polic

Re: dh_make generates Stds. version 3.6.0 but latest is 3.6.1

Number Six ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) schrieb: > > If dh_make generates debian/control at Standards-Version: 3.6.0, and the > latest Standards-Version: is 3.6.1, how can I verify my project actually > meets the correct standards (if I just bump the number)? > > Can a tool do it? No. There's a hint to help

dh_make generates Stds. version 3.6.0 but latest is 3.6.1

If dh_make generates debian/control at Standards-Version: 3.6.0, and the latest Standards-Version: is 3.6.1, how can I verify my project actually meets the correct standards (if I just bump the number)? Can a tool do it?

Re: dh_make generates Stds. version 3.6.0 but latest is 3.6.1

Number Six <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > If dh_make generates debian/control at Standards-Version: 3.6.0, and the > latest Standards-Version: is 3.6.1, how can I verify my project actually > meets the correct standards (if I just bump the number)? /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checkli

Re: dh_make generates Stds. version 3.6.0 but latest is 3.6.1

On 2004-03-16 Number Six <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If dh_make generates debian/control at Standards-Version: 3.6.0, and > the latest Standards-Version: is 3.6.1, how can I verify my project > actually meets the correct standards (if I just bump the number)? > Can a tool do it? No. Check polic

Re: Where shoud I put my public key?

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 07:37:24PM -0800, Number Six wrote: > > gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --send-key [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Okay, I did that. Is there a canonical-Debian way to point the world > there to verify it? So they'll actually trust the .dsc? > > Or do I just do that in an out-of-ba

Re: Where shoud I put my public key?

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 07:37:24PM -0800, Number Six wrote: > Okay, I did that. Is there a canonical-Debian way to point the world > there to verify it? So they'll actually trust the .dsc? Yep, apply as a New Maintainer. see http://nm.debian.org/ On the other hand, if you just want users to be

Re: RFS: mimms - MMS (mms://) streaming media download utility

On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 22:24, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > On Sunday 07 March 2004 9:59 pm, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > I'm looking for a sponsor for the mimms package. This upload would > > close ITP bug #221806. > > > > Source and binary packages can be downloaded from: > >