Re: "what it's like" to be old debian maintainer

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 03:04:13AM +0100, J??r??my Lal wrote: > i'm wondering what happens when you spent hours and > years dealing with debian... is it something you don't regreat ? I was wondering if you meant someone who is old who is a Debian maintainer or someone who has been involved in Debi

Re: "what it's like" to be old debian maintainer

Jérémy Lal writes: > i'm wondering what happens when you spent hours and years dealing with > debian... is it something you don't regreat ? No regrets for time spent working on Debian, from my perspective as a few-years-maintainer and a many-years-contributor. Debian has been such an enormous b

Re: "what it's like" to be old debian maintainer

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:04:13 +0100 Jérémy Lal wrote: > i'm wondering what happens when you spent hours and > years dealing with debian... is it something you don't regreat ? > I'm in the learning curve and it's still very interesting, > so it's natural for me to ask what more experienced people >

"what it's like" to be old debian maintainer

i'm wondering what happens when you spent hours and years dealing with debian... is it something you don't regreat ? I'm in the learning curve and it's still very interesting, so it's natural for me to ask what more experienced people feel about that. Kind regards, Jérémy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, em

Re: Source format 3.0 (quilt) and new debhelper dh syntax (maint-guide)

Osamu Aoki writes: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 01:07:12AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > AFAIK, the standard debian/rules targets are not automatically added > > to the ‘.PHONY’ rule, which IMO is enough reason to keep them > > explicit. > > I am talking about new style debian/rules: > --

Re: RFS: aaphoto

Hi, I didn't get this mail what you gave the link for. Should i subscribe to the mentors list? I thought i'll get mails forwarded automatically regarding my package. I'll go and fix those issues then. Thanks for the link. I can fix it tomorrow. I'll send an e-mail after i uploaded. Andras On

Re: RFS: aaphoto

Hi Andras, > In some of the previous mail i got this: > >> in addition to the items already mentioned by Chris: >> >> - the orig.tar.gz is different from >> http://log69.com/downloads/aaphoto_sources_v0.36.tar.gz. The >> orig.tar.gz has to be identical to the upstream one, unless you have >> good

Re: RFS: aaphoto

Hi, In some of the previous mail i got this: > in addition to the items already mentioned by Chris: > > - the orig.tar.gz is different from > http://log69.com/downloads/aaphoto_sources_v0.36.tar.gz. The > orig.tar.gz has to be identical to the upstream one, unless you have > good reasons (which I

Re: RFS: aaphoto

Hi > I've made the following changes: > [...] > I have uploaded the aaphoto package to mentors. as far as I can see your upload to mentors.d.n from yesterday evening does not address any of the issues pointed out by Chris. Best regards, Joachim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-req

RFS: hwb (updated non-free package)

Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:040412-4 of my package "hwb". It builds this binary package: hwb- The Hardware Book Description: Contains miscellaneous technical information about computers and other electronic devices. You'll find the pinout to ma

Re: RFS: lal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 :P Why not? Everybody will have a copy of you. Seriously though, if it bothers you I could try to talk to upstream about changing the name. It was actually picked because when it was built the original author had an lol.c file and just picked a differ

Re: RFS: lal

i already said this, but i'm not confortable at the idea of being packaged :) Jérémy Lal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ba7991e.6060...@edagames.c

Re: Source format 3.0 (quilt) and new debhelper dh syntax (maint-guide)

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 03:31:41PM +0100, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: > Le lundi 22 mars 2010, Osamu Aoki a écrit : > > If you have "binary" and "build" targets explicitly mentioned in > > debian/rules, it is time to update it :-) > > > > Anyway, many people still use old rule file for debhelper. Please

Re: Source format 3.0 (quilt) and new debhelper dh syntax (maint-guide)

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:18:22PM +0700, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Looks like some part of the HTML generation is broken: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html#s-rules > > "Debian Policy Manual, 4.9 \|[quot ]\|Main buildi

Re: Source format 3.0 (quilt) and new debhelper dh syntax (maint-guide)

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 03:31:41PM +0100, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: > In fact, I am looking for a documentation that explains what dh $@ does > for each call, and what the dh_auto_* do. The new maintainer guide gives > some information, but, if it is complete, that means that there are > common cases th

Re: Source format 3.0 (quilt) and new debhelper dh syntax (maint-guide)

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 01:07:12AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Osamu Aoki writes: > > > If you have "binary" and "build" targets explicitly mentioned in > > debian/rules, it is time to update it :-) > > AFAIK, the standard debian/rules targets are not automatically added to > the ‘.PHONY’ rule, w

Re: RFS: lal

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Michael Lustfield wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "lal". As promised on IRC, here is a review: Please forward the Makefile patch upstream if you haven't yet done so. In the upstream Makefile you should remove the / from ${DESTDIR}/${PREFIX}.

Re: Source format 3.0 (quilt) and new debhelper dh syntax (maint-guide)

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 05:16:48PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: > If by "new dh rules" you mean "the use of dh(1) to do everything, only > overriding what is necessary", then those do indeed support completely > arch-independent packages like e.g. http://packages.debian.org/sid/s5 :) [...] I updat

Re: Source format 3.0 (quilt) and new debhelper dh syntax (maint-guide)

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote: > I hope my recent updats on maint-guide (in subversion) should help it. > >  http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/index.en.html > > Your feed back is most welcomed. Looks like some part of the HTML generation is broken: http://www.deb

Re: Source format 3.0 (quilt) and new debhelper dh syntax (maint-guide)

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 03:31:41PM +0100, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: > Le lundi 22 mars 2010, Osamu Aoki a ??crit???: > > If you have "binary" and "build" targets explicitly mentioned in > > debian/rules, it is time to update it :-) > > > > Anyway, many people still use old rule file for debhelper. Ple

Re: Source format 3.0 (quilt) and new debhelper dh syntax (maint-guide)

Le lundi 22 mars 2010, Osamu Aoki a écrit : > If you have "binary" and "build" targets explicitly mentioned in > debian/rules, it is time to update it :-) > > Anyway, many people still use old rule file for debhelper. Please > consider to update them in more readable one. I am considering it ver

Re: Source format 3.0 (quilt) and new debhelper dh syntax (maint-guide)

Osamu Aoki writes: > If you have "binary" and "build" targets explicitly mentioned in > debian/rules, it is time to update it :-) AFAIK, the standard debian/rules targets are not automatically added to the ‘.PHONY’ rule, which IMO is enough reason to keep them explicit. -- \ “The manager

Source format 3.0 (quilt) and new debhelper dh syntax (maint-guide)

Hi, If you have "binary" and "build" targets explicitly mentioned in debian/rules, it is time to update it :-) After experimenting with new debhelper dh syntax a bit, I finally got up speed with dpkg source format 3.0 (quilt). I was surprised to find out how simple package has become with debhel

Re: RFS: commit-patch

> David Caldwell writes: > > > Here's a blog post about a possible use case, written a few years ago: > > > > > > Okay. The author of that post acknowledges: > > Checking in patches effectively means checking in untested code. >

Re: RFS: commit-patch

David Caldwell writes: > Here's a blog post about a possible use case, written a few years ago: > > Okay. The author of that post acknowledges: Checking in patches effectively means checking in untested code. That's my main pro

Re: RFS: commit-patch

David Caldwell writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > > Why does 'commit-patch' not affect the working tree? How is the > > revision related to others, then? > > The revision is potentially not related to the state of your working > tree at all. Most likely, though, the patch is a minor tweak on your >

Re: RFS: aaphoto

Hi, > I think this was a misunderstanding. I did not want you to rename > REMARKS to EXTRA_DIST. If you use "make dist" to generate a tarball > that contains all relevant files you have to include additional text > files and other stuff that is not known to automake in an EXTRA_DIST > rule, otherw

Re: RFS: commit-patch

Ben Finney wrote: > David Caldwell writes: > > > Interesting. 'bzr patch' doesn't seem to be documented in my bzr, > > but it appears to apply the patch to the working directory instead of > > committing it. This is not what commit-patch does--it commits the > > patch to the repository and leav