Re: Bug#49178: /var/log/wwwcount/wwwcount.log should not be in package list

1999-11-05 Thread Roderick Schertler
to be enough to build the whole thing. Just make the binary target depend on the build target ( binary-arch: build or the equivalent). -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: postinst?

1999-09-06 Thread Roderick Schertler
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 14:27:51 +0100 (BST), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > postinst: > - > #! /bin/sh One is supposed to use the -e switch here, or to set it from inside. -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: naming for mon-related packages

1999-09-05 Thread Roderick Schertler
party monitors, alerts, or clients, but there's no real reason to split up the main distribution. -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

naming for mon-related packages

1999-09-04 Thread Roderick Schertler
rvices, so I'd call it mon-monitor-rpc. Does anybody think this will be a problem? In particular, are the names too long? -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cgi script question: copied or linked?

1999-07-13 Thread Roderick Schertler
ipt they didn't expect. The admin can link your program into cgi-bin if desired. -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Chaning a new package still in incoming?

1999-05-05 Thread Roderick Schertler
ting which comes from people downloading from incoming is useful for the project. It helps unstable to be more stable than it otherwise would be. Why would you want to discourage it? There are benefits to using a new version number when you re-upload the package, and no disadvantages. -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Chaning a new package still in incoming?

1999-05-04 Thread Roderick Schertler
? You should use a new version number if it was in incoming for more than a minute or two, because people download packages from incoming and its mirrors. -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Binaries for other architectures

1999-04-05 Thread Roderick Schertler
en't read the changelogs for most of the updated packages I install. -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gated package

1999-03-25 Thread Roderick Schertler
. I've put the diffs for the local package I'm using at http://www.argon.org/~roderick/gated_3.5.9-0.0.2.diff.gz temporarily. They are mostly Dermot Bradley's work with a few small changes from me. -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: gated package

1999-03-24 Thread Roderick Schertler
9/debian/ => debian --- gated-3.5.8/debian/rulesFri Nov 6 16:06:03 1998 +++ gated-3.5.9/debian/rulesFri Nov 6 16:07:31 1998 @@ -53,7 +53,6 @@ dh_shlibdeps dh_gencontrol # dh_makeshlibs - dh_du dh_md5sums dh_builddeb -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: trying to package infobot.

1999-03-12 Thread Roderick Schertler
install -c 755 infobot $(dt)/usr/bin install $(lib_files) $(dt)/usr/lib/infobot -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when new version available upstream...

1999-03-03 Thread Roderick Schertler
the commit/tag/cvs-buildpackage more often because you're concerned that building it that way will fail when building it in the normal way will work? -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Announcing from dupload

1998-12-08 Thread Roderick Schertler
is refusing mail with an invalid MAIL FROM. -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dupload/scp

1998-03-10 Thread Roderick Schertler
mod 1777 /tmp' as root. -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: quake2 config file conflict handling

1998-03-05 Thread Roderick Schertler
On 05 Mar 1998 10:26:45 -0500, Roderick Schertler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > The new package has two config files where the old package had only > one. If I downgrade to the old package the second config file isn't > removed. If I purge the old version at that point t

Re: quake2 config file conflict handling

1998-03-05 Thread Roderick Schertler
ld package the second config file isn't removed. If I purge the old version at that point the second config file is left on the system. Am I causing this somehow? -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

quake2 config file conflict handling

1998-03-04 Thread Roderick Schertler
ion being older than this release. Is there a better general approach? Are there cases I should be handling which this ignores? -- Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]