[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small) writes:
[...]
> The directory name doesn't matter that much as things like dpkg-source
> seem to handle most of these quite well. The fact that the archive
> extracts out to that directory means the orig.tar.gz is being created.
>
> I generally never let that happ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small) writes:
[...]
> The directory name doesn't matter that much as things like dpkg-source
> seem to handle most of these quite well. The fact that the archive
> extracts out to that directory means the orig.tar.gz is being created.
>
> I generally never let that happ
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:40:05 +0200 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Johannes Rohr wrote:
>> as you both suggested. But I wonder if the BTS could have an "invalid"
>> tag for such cases?!?
>
> Why clog it up with invalid reports? They st
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:40:05 +0200 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Johannes Rohr wrote:
>> as you both suggested. But I wonder if the BTS could have an "invalid"
>> tag for such cases?!?
>
> Why clog it up with invalid reports? They st
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small) writes:
[...]
>> What is the generally accepted way within the "Debian culture" to deal
>> with such reports? Do I close the bug right away? Do I downgrade it?
>> Do I reassign it (in this case to gstreamer)?
> I'd close it. At the very worse tag it wontfix and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small) writes:
[...]
>> What is the generally accepted way within the "Debian culture" to deal
>> with such reports? Do I close the bug right away? Do I downgrade it?
>> Do I reassign it (in this case to gstreamer)?
> I'd close it. At the very worse tag it wontfix and
Dear all,
some days ago someone filed an obviously bogus bug against a package
I'm co-maintaining (nautilus-media, bug #197352), i.e. he complained
about being unable to install the gnome-core metapackage on hppa
because nautilus-media on which gnome-core depends is unavailable on
that arch.
The
Dear all,
some days ago someone filed an obviously bogus bug against a package
I'm co-maintaining (nautilus-media, bug #197352), i.e. he complained
about being unable to install the gnome-core metapackage on hppa
because nautilus-media on which gnome-core depends is unavailable on
that arch.
The
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:36:51PM -0500, Morgon Kanter wrote:
> > Have you tried sourceforge? ( http://sourceforge.net )
>
> par condicio:
>
> have you tried savannah? ( http://savannah.gnu.org )
[...]
Well, thanks everyone! I've got a lot of
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:36:51PM -0500, Morgon Kanter wrote:
> > Have you tried sourceforge? ( http://sourceforge.net )
>
> par condicio:
>
> have you tried savannah? ( http://savannah.gnu.org )
[...]
Well, thanks everyone! I've got a lot of
Hello mentors and Debian hackers,
I am co-maintaining a small package (nautilus-media) with another
newbie maintainer. The best way to keep our work in sync would
probably be setting up a CVS repository for that package. But since
I'm behind a dialup line, setting it up on my box is not an option.
Hello mentors and Debian hackers,
I am co-maintaining a small package (nautilus-media) with another
newbie maintainer. The best way to keep our work in sync would
probably be setting up a CVS repository for that package. But since
I'm behind a dialup line, setting it up on my box is not an option.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:20:04AM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> Johannes Rohr (2003-03-18 10:43:04 +0100) :
>
> > NOTE: The latest unofficial packages had Debian revision numbers >
> > 1. If you had one of them installed, you have to force a downgrade
> > to get the
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:20:04AM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> Johannes Rohr (2003-03-18 10:43:04 +0100) :
>
> > NOTE: The latest unofficial packages had Debian revision numbers >
> > 1. If you had one of them installed, you have to force a downgrade
> > to get the
Hello,
nautilus-media has been finally uploaded to the Debian archive and is
in incoming right now. A big 'Thank you' goes out to Florian Weps
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for sponsoring this package as well as to Emil
Soleyman-Zolaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for doing most of the packaging
work!
Description:
Hello,
nautilus-media has been finally uploaded to the Debian archive and is
in incoming right now. A big 'Thank you' goes out to Florian Weps
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for sponsoring this package as well as to Emil
Soleyman-Zolaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for doing most of the packaging
work!
Description:
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > > Is there a 'canonical' way to achive what I'm asking for?
> >
> > I simply use APTCACHE=/var/cache/apt/archives/, it copies the contents
> > into the chroot first and copies back the newly downloaded debs.
> >
>
> I'll add this into the
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > > Is there a 'canonical' way to achive what I'm asking for?
> >
> > I simply use APTCACHE=/var/cache/apt/archives/, it copies the contents
> > into the chroot first and copies back the newly downloaded debs.
> >
>
> I'll add this into the
Hello everyone,
I think this question has been answered here before. However, I could
not find it in the list archives:
Since I'm behind a 64-k ISDN line, I would like pbuilder to use cached
packages from /var/cache/apt/archives, if available instead of
unconditionally downloading all the stuff.
Hello everyone,
I think this question has been answered here before. However, I could
not find it in the list archives:
Since I'm behind a 64-k ISDN line, I would like pbuilder to use cached
packages from /var/cache/apt/archives, if available instead of
unconditionally downloading all the stuff.
itate to set up a pbuilder.
Thanks for any help!
Johannes Rohr
Package information:
* Package name: nautilus-media
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Thomas Vander Stichele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
James Willcox
Keith Conger
* URL
itate to set up a pbuilder.
Thanks for any help!
Johannes Rohr
Package information:
* Package name: nautilus-media
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Thomas Vander Stichele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
James Willcox
Keith Conger
* URL
"Volker Sturm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
[...]
> fixes. What worries me is packages like gnupg in version 1.0.6 on
> woody. I think that it would be really important to stay extra current
> with packages like this one. I have noticed that the trustdb.gpg
> database changed for example becaus
"Volker Sturm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
[...]
> fixes. What worries me is packages like gnupg in version 1.0.6 on
> woody. I think that it would be really important to stay extra current
> with packages like this one. I have noticed that the trustdb.gpg
> database changed for example becaus
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems to me that they just don't care at all about Debian. I really
> > wonder _how_ they build their debs. I mean: A binary package which has a
> > "Build-depen
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems to me that they just don't care at all about Debian. I really
> > wonder _how_ they build their debs. I mean: A binary package which has a
> > "Build-depen
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:13:56PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [...] I am examining if it is possible to replace
> > the installer package with a package that contains the actual
> > software. So I'm not plan
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:13:56PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Johannes Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [...] I am examining if it is possible to replace
> > the installer package with a package that contains the actual
> > software. So I'm not plan
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:34:20AM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > [packing a virus detection program]
> >
> > amavis is already in Debian. It needs a third party virus scanner to
> > work. Also clamav is already in Debian. (I never heard of it
> > before.). So now I can choose either to abandon
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:34:20AM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > [packing a virus detection program]
> >
> > amavis is already in Debian. It needs a third party virus scanner to
> > work. Also clamav is already in Debian. (I never heard of it
> > before.). So now I can choose either to abandon
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > Personally, BTW, I would really, really prefer to maintain Free
> > Software, not *only* for political reasons but also because a
> > commercial vendor is obviously the least responsive upstream you can
> > have. And also, not having access t
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > Personally, BTW, I would really, really prefer to maintain Free
> > Software, not *only* for political reasons but also because a
> > commercial vendor is obviously the least responsive upstream you can
> > have. And also, not having access t
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
>
> > if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
> > will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
> > In
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
>
> > if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
> > will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
> > In
Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frank Gevaerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
>
> Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
> various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into
> non-fre
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> * Add your file to the package somewhere
>
> * Modify debian/rules (or possibly one of the debhelper config files
> if it's using debhelper) to install your file at a particular
> location
[...]
Is using the install(1) command recommended, o
Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frank Gevaerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
>
> Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
> various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into
> non-fre
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> * Add your file to the package somewhere
>
> * Modify debian/rules (or possibly one of the debhelper config files
> if it's using debhelper) to install your file at a particular
> location
[...]
Is using the install(1) command recommended, o
Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
> > will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
>
> DFSG (http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html)
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Hello there,
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a "warning" about usage
restrictions but no definite statement.
Thanks,
Johannes
--
~/.signature under c
Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
> > will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
>
> DFSG (http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html)
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Hello there,
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a "warning" about usage
restrictions but no definite statement.
Thanks,
Johannes
--
~/.signature under c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small) writes:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:27:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> > Lately F-Prot has started offering their own deb, but it is rather
> > broken. Therefore I think that the f-prot-installer package still has a
> > reason to exist.
&g
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small) writes:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:27:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> > Lately F-Prot has started offering their own deb, but it is rather
> > broken. Therefore I think that the f-prot-installer package still has a
> > reason to exist.
&g
Hello,
due to filing too many bug reports I have been coerced ;-) to take over
maintainership of the f-prot-installer package in contrib.
The package is intended to install the F-Prot for Small Business virus
scanner which is availabe at http://www.f-prot.com/getfplinfree.html
Lately F-Prot has
Hello,
due to filing too many bug reports I have been coerced ;-) to take over
maintainership of the f-prot-installer package in contrib.
The package is intended to install the F-Prot for Small Business virus
scanner which is availabe at http://www.f-prot.com/getfplinfree.html
Lately F-Prot has
46 matches
Mail list logo
