Hi,
In article ,
Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
>
>> noowner 669373
> Bug #669373 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: flactag/2.0.2-1 ITP #507876
> Removed annotation that Bug was owned by alger...@madhouse-project.org.
>> tag 669373 - pendi
In article <4fbab097.7080...@trendhosting.net>,
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 21/05/12 19:35, Andy Hawkins wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:26:43PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> this was discussed on debian-mentors today - some lintia
Hi,
In article <4fbab097.7080...@trendhosting.net>,
> I wonder if that is justification to make a lintian-override for that
> warning?
If someone else can confirm that's the cause, then yes.
Andy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscrib
Hi,
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:26:43PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> this was discussed on debian-mentors today - some lintian warnings are
> not 100% reliable
Yeah, I've been following that.
> $ hardening-check flactag
> flactag:
> Position Independent Executable: yes
> Stack protected: yes
>
Gergely, Daniel has uploaded new packages for flactag (2.0.2-1) and
libmusicbrainz5 (5.0.1-1). Are you still considering sponsoring flactag?
Would you also consider sponsoring libmusicbrainz5? Now that its version
number has been bumped, there should be no blocking bugs stopping it from
being accep
Hi,
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:10:29PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I think the previous pattern is not so helpful and we can also look at it
> in a slightly different perspective, consistency with the pattern used by
> other libs
I'm not sure you can use all other libraries as an example. A go
Hi,
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:26:04AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I agree that this is valid and that these libs/pkgs can co-exist
> My preference would be for the soname libmusicbrainz.so.5, is there any
> outright reason to avoid the other way of doing it, or it is largely at
> the discretio
Hi,
In article <4fb20730.1090...@pocock.com.au>,
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> There has been some discussion on this list about flactag and libmusicbrainz
>
> libmusicbrainz SONAMEs have a colourful history and this is reflected in
> the way previous versions have been packaged
>
> e.g.
>
> S
Hi,
In article <4fafeb52.9000...@pocock.com.au>,
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> What does that mean in practice? As a way of being able to use either
> the new or the old XML web API? Or both libs working against the same
> XML web API, but some client applications have simply not been update
Hi,
In article <4fae92f8.4070...@pocock.com.au>,
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> "Both Debian packages are called libmusicbrainz4, yet
> OLD: code v2.1.x, SONAME = libmusicbrainz.so.4, ABI = 4
> NEW: code v4.0.x, SONAME = libmusicbrainz4.so.3, ABI = 3"
But limbm3 (the immediate previous version
Hi.
In article <4fae801d.2010...@pocock.com.au>,
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Does the -dev package need the ABI number in the name?
If it does, then there isn't an issue. The dev will me libmb4-3-dev.
> libmusicbrainz-dev -> /usr/include/musicbrainz/*.h?
That won't work really.
>
Hi,
In article <8762c2qyan@luthien.mhp>,
Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Shouldn't the new one be named libmusicbranz4-3 then? Because if the ABI
> gets bumped to 4, then we'll have libmusicbrainz4.so.4, but it's a
> different library than 4.so.3, thus, will need a different name anyway.
As
Hi,
In article <87d36nrivz@luthien.mhp>,
Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Nope, didn't have a chance yet. Today or tomorrow I will have a little
> time and see what I can do. I'll investigate the libmb4 status too.
Ok, thanks for that.
The issue with libmb4 is that (for some reason) one of t
onsor for our package "flactag"
>>
>> * Package name: flactag
>> Version : 2.0.1-1
>>Upstream Author : Andy Hawkins
>> * URL : http://flactag.sourceforge.net/
>> * License : GPL v3
>>Section : sound
>
Hi,
In article <4f6379eb.7090...@free.fr>,
Geoff wrote:
> It looks like the issue got some attention yet.
> Please refer to #656587
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/656587
Yeah, just been talking on irc about this.
I think I'll drop my attempts to package the library, and get on with
packagi
Hi,
In article ,
Andy Hawkins wrote:
> I am the author of libmusicbrainz4, a library to access the MusicBrainz
> service. There have been previous versions of this library in Debian, and I
> would like to get this new version included if at all possible.
I've since
In article ,
Andy Hawkins wrote:
> Hi again,
> In article <20120315002612.gm15...@ofb.net>,
>Nicholas Breen wrote:
>> Does the old library still function with the MusicBrainz service? If it's
>> just
>> deadweight now, you could also
Hi again,
In article <20120315002612.gm15...@ofb.net>,
Nicholas Breen wrote:
> Does the old library still function with the MusicBrainz service? If it's
> just
> deadweight now, you could also work to transition all packages still using the
> old library (there are four) to the new, re
Hi,
In article <20120315082857.ga31...@gmail.com>,
Simon Chopin wrote:
> Please, try to avoid using the name libmusicbrainz4-ngs, it would
> complicate further the already quite complicated naming situation for
> the different musicbrainz interfaces out there : there is already a
> Pyth
Hi,
In article <20120315002612.gm15...@ofb.net>,
Nicholas Breen wrote:
> The "4" in those packages comes from the major version number in the library's
> SONAME, "libmusicbrainz.so.4". The new version you are looking at packaging
> is
> a little trickier, because it has a number in th
Hi all,
I am the author of libmusicbrainz4, a library to access the MusicBrainz
service. There have been previous versions of this library in Debian, and I
would like to get this new version included if at all possible.
A couple of questions:
1. There already appears to be a libmusicbrainz4 pack
d be done better, as well as general
comments.
* Package name: flactag
Version : 1.1-2
Upstream Author : Andy Hawkins
* URL : http://software.gently.org.uk/flactag
* License : LGPL
Section : sound
It builds these binary packages:
flactag- A tagger f
Hi,
In article <20081216152609.ga7...@powdarrmonkey.net>,
Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
Thanks for the comments:
> debian/changelog:=20
> * you can't target stable, you probably want unstable or
> perhaps experimental
> * have you split the changelog entry into two lines for a reason? Do
d be done better, as well as general
comments.
* Package name: flactag
Version : 1.1-1
Upstream Author : Andy Hawkins
* URL : http://software.gently.org.uk/flactag
* License : GPL
Section : sound
It builds these binary packages:
flactag- A tagger f
Hi,
In article <20081211213923.gd6...@powdarrmonkey.net>,
Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> You need to file an Intent to Package [1] if you haven't already.
Yep, I've done that.
> Then when you upload to mentors.d.n, you have the opportunity to log in
> and get a template Request for Spon
Hi,
In article <20081211211444.b3526312.codeh...@debian.org>,
Neil Williams wrote:
> Upstream is not Debian - the two should not mix, even if your are the
> Debian maintainer. The debian/ directory will have to be changed
> between upstream releases and must not be overwritten with the
Hi,
In article <200812111821.06249.to...@rastageeks.org>,
Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Please, make sure to seperate the debian packaging files from your released
> software. There can be several debian package for a single upstream release,
> so debian-related things should always be out
Hi all,
I think I'm about done with the packaging of my flactag utility. Initially
I'd like someone who knows about these things to take a look over the
package to make sure there's nothing I've done wrong, or missed that I
should have done.
Just for information, I plan on offering a .deb that's
Hi,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Neil Williams<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can someone confirm / deny my understanding here? As I say, I'm very
>> new to all this.
>
> Sorry to inflict my mistake upon you. It happens to everyone at some
> point.
Whoops. It appears the mistake is mi
Hi,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andy Hawkins<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Umm, I'll try. I'm not sure exactly what that bug report should say! Kind of
> new to all this Debian packaging stuff (as of this time last week I knew
> nothing about it!).
N
Hi,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Wise<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> New symbols. It specifically has support for embedding images into the FLAC
>> file. This was i
Hi,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Neil Williams<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dpkg-shlibdeps appears to disagree - either the symbols in FLAC are
> wrong or your suspicion could be wrong. Are you talking about new
> symbols in the FLAC library or bug fixes in existing functions?
New sy
Hi,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Neil Williams<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This "component" is a shared library and therefore a build dependency.
> If you are going to force a particular version, you should do it in
> Build-Depends.
> dpkg-shlibdeps will then work out the rest using
Hi,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Wise<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I need to force the version of one particular component.
>
> Why is that?
Because that version
Hi all,
I'm in the process of building my first package. Most of the dependencies
generated by ${shlibs:Depends} are fine for the package, but I need to force
the version of one particular component.
So I've put
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, libflac++6(>=1.2.1)
in the 'control' f
35 matches
Mail list logo
