Re: Getting -m64 at the right time and place.

2008-11-14 Thread Paul Wise
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am working on a package that, when unmodified, fails on 32bits arches > because > -m64 is in the CFLAGS. We solved the problem by patching the configure file, > but of course this breaks when new upstream releases ref

Re: RFS: libxml-simple-ruby (updated package)

2008-11-14 Thread Ryan Niebur
Hi, On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 01:02:57PM +0530, Deepak Tripathi wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.11-2 > of my package "libxml-simple-ruby". > > It builds these binary packages: > libxml-simple-ruby - Simple Ruby API for reading and writing XML > >

Re: Getting -m64 at the right time and place.

2008-11-14 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:37:55PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > However, as I do not understand the purpose of -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, I am > worried it would be breaking maq on 32-bit arches to remove it. It will only break its ability to read large files (> 2GB). That is what _FILE_OFFSET_BITS

RFS: libxml-simple-ruby (updated package)

2008-11-14 Thread Deepak Tripathi
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.11-2 of my package "libxml-simple-ruby". It builds these binary packages: libxml-simple-ruby - Simple Ruby API for reading and writing XML The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 439746, 491730 T

Getting -m64 at the right time and place.

2008-11-14 Thread Charles Plessy
Dear mentors, I am working on a package that, when unmodified, fails on 32bits arches because -m64 is in the CFLAGS. We solved the problem by patching the configure file, but of course this breaks when new upstream releases refresh it with newer versions of autoconf. I am now exploring the possib

Re: RFS: bot-sentry

2008-11-14 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
On Friday 14 November 2008, Tobias Domhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'RFS: bot-sentry': > Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream] >* URL : [fill in URL of upstreams web site] >* License : [fill in] You seem to have not filled everything in. -- Boyd Stephe

RFS: bot-sentry

2008-11-14 Thread Tobias Domhan
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bot-sentry". * Package name: bot-sentry Version : 1.3.0-1 Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream] * URL : [fill in URL of upstreams web site] * License : [fill in] Section : net

Re: version.dfsg

2008-11-14 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Peter Fritzsche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 14 November 2008 19:33:41 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: >> > Why is version 1.0.18a.dfsg considered OLDER than 1.0.18.dfsg? >> > >> > $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.18a.dfsg-1 gt 1.0.18.dfsg-1 ; echo $? >> > 1 >> >

Re: version.dfsg

2008-11-14 Thread Peter Fritzsche
On Friday 14 November 2008 19:33:41 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > > Why is version 1.0.18a.dfsg considered OLDER than 1.0.18.dfsg? > > > > $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.18a.dfsg-1 gt 1.0.18.dfsg-1 ; echo $? > > 1 > > > > If not adding the ".dfsg", the result is as expected (1.0.18a > 1.0.18) : > > >

Re: version.dfsg

2008-11-14 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Pau Garcia i Quiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Why is version 1.0.18a.dfsg considered OLDER than 1.0.18.dfsg? > > $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.18a.dfsg-1 gt 1.0.18.dfsg-1 ; echo $? > 1 > > If not adding the ".dfsg", the result is as expected (1.0.18a >

version.dfsg

2008-11-14 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
Hello, Why is version 1.0.18a.dfsg considered OLDER than 1.0.18.dfsg? $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.18a.dfsg-1 gt 1.0.18.dfsg-1 ; echo $? 1 If not adding the ".dfsg", the result is as expected (1.0.18a > 1.0.18) : $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.18a-1 gt 1.0.18-1 ; echo $? 0 Is that a bug with v

Re: RFS: esmtp (updated package)

2008-11-14 Thread Jose Luis Rivas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 05:23:19AM +, José Fonseca wrote: >>> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: >>> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/esmtp >>> - Source repository: deb-src http://men

Re: Using pbuilder to test packages with gcc-snapshot

2008-11-14 Thread Kumar Appaiah
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:25:16PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:19:38PM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > > I was wondering if you could suggest a nice way to use pbuilder to > > test package builds with gcc-snapshot. > > Just a note to point out that sbuild supports the use

Re: Using pbuilder to test packages with gcc-snapshot

2008-11-14 Thread Roger Leigh
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:19:38PM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > I was wondering if you could suggest a nice way to use pbuilder to > test package builds with gcc-snapshot. Just a note to point out that sbuild supports the use of gcc-snapshot without any special configuration. Just add the --use-

Re: Using pbuilder to test packages with gcc-snapshot

2008-11-14 Thread Eric Pozharski
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:19:38PM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > Dear Debian Mentors, *SKIP* > 1. Is there a way to set an arbitrary environment variable while >running pbuilder (in my case, LD_LIBRARY_PATH). Try adding C in pbuilderrc (whatever is effective in your installation). If my und

Re: RFS: esmtp (updated package)

2008-11-14 Thread Bernhard R. Link
* José Fonseca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081114 06:38]: > > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libdl.so.2 could be avoided if > > "debian/esmtp/usr/bin/esmtp" were not uselessly linked against it (they use > > none of its symbols). > > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libssl.so.0.9.8 cou