Re: How package a binary library with unversioned soname?

Nikolaus Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am packaging printer drivers from Canon, see [1] for the ITP and some > notes about that very peculiar, awkward beast. These drivers are only > partly free software, they come with non-free, binary-only libraries. > While this is bad enough, unfortu

Re: How package a binary library with unversioned soname?

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's section 2.2.3. See also the last sentence of section 2. Thanks. http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-non-free> In addition, the packages in non-free [...] * must meet all policy requirements presented in this

Re: How package a binary library with unversioned soname?

Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Can you show the location where that's stated? Did you try searching the table of contents for "non-free" and following the link? It's section 2.2.3. See also the last sentence of section 2. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: How package a binary library with unversioned soname?

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The Debian policy only applies to packages in Debian. The software > > you're discussing won't be in Debian (because it's non-free), and > > is not subject to Debian policy. > > Debian Policy does apply to packa

Re: How package a binary library with unversioned soname?

Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Nikolaus Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> So, one cannot produce valid shlibs files for these libraries. But >> these are required by policy. That is, as Steve Langasek has >> pointed out in [2], the policy de-facto requires libraries to have >> vers

Re: How package a binary library with unversioned soname?

Nikolaus Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, one cannot produce valid shlibs files for these libraries. But > these are required by policy. That is, as Steve Langasek has > pointed out in [2], the policy de-facto requires libraries to have > versioned sonames. The Debian policy only applie

RFS: openmotif (updated package)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.3.0-1 of my package "openmotif". It builds these binary packages: libmotif-dev - Open Motif - development files libmotif4 - Open Motif - shared libraries libmrm4- Open Motif - shar

How package a binary library with unversioned soname?

Hi mentors, I am packaging printer drivers from Canon, see [1] for the ITP and some notes about that very peculiar, awkward beast. These drivers are only partly free software, they come with non-free, binary-only libraries. While this is bad enough, unfortunately the libraries have unversioned

Re: RFS: gimmix

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:48:36 +0200 Vincent Legout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gimmix". > > * Package name: gimmix > Version : 0.4.1-1 > Upstream Author : Priyank Gosalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http:/

RFS: gimmix

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "gimmix". * Package name: gimmix Version : 0.4.1-1 Upstream Author : Priyank Gosalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://gimmix.berlios.de * License : GPL Section : sound It builds these binary pac

Re: RFS: ario

Hi, > Well it should be tag in source package and not in description, I moved > it this way and uploaded package. Thanks for your upload but I received this mail from Joerg Jaspert: Hi Maintainer, rejected, two things. First, an easy to fix Lintian E: E: ario: description-synopsis-is-duplicat