Hi,
What do I need to do to move to signing my packages with GPG signatures?
Currently my PGP key is the Debian keyring. When I build packages I am
warned about RSA keys being deprecated.
Thanks.
S.
--
"Be patient, son. A watched car never crashes."
-- Homer J.
Sudhakar Chandrasekharan proclaimed:
> cc -O2 -g -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -W -Wno-parentheses
> -Wstrict-prototypes -c -o i386-ports.o i386-ports.c
> In file included from i386-ports.c:15:
> /usr/include/sys/io.h:44: redefinition of `inb'
> /usr/include/asm/io.h:78: `inb
Hi,
I am trying to compile the latest upstream version of powertweak
(http://linux.powertweak.com/). The compilation is failing at the point
where the pciutils that come with powertweak are being compiled.
Powertweak's upstream author suggested that I try compiling the pciutils
package from sour
I am the maintainer of the powertweak package. I have the package in a
decent enough shape that I want to make the package more conformant to the
Debian Policy manual. Powertweak (http://linux.powertweak.com/) is a
software that tweaks various pieces of hardware for optimum / increased
performanc
294: file conflict
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 05:33:02 GMT
Resent-From: Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Sudhakar Chandrasekharan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 02:09:02 -0400
From: Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PR
I am in the process of packaging Powertweak for Linux
(http://linux.powertweak.com/) Which section should powertweak go into?
admin? utils?
Thaths
--
"Step aside everyone! Sensitive love letters are my specialty. 'Dear
Baby, Welcome to Dumpsville. Population: you.'" -- Homer J. Simpson
Sudhak
Taketoshi Sano proclaimed:
> So, I proposed the author to change the license as following,
> and He agrees to this change now.
>
> %%%
> Redistribution and use with or without modification are permitted provided
> that the following conditions are met:
>
> 1. One of the following (1-a,1-b,1-c)
>
I am in the process of packaging various alternative dictionaries for the
aspell spell checker (currently in potato). I downloaded the upstream
source for the alternate dictionaries and tar zxvf-ed them. The README
says -
<">
Aspell Alternate Dictionary Package
Version .10
January 11, 1998
This
What do I typically do when there is a new version available upstream? I
previously packaged the aspell spell checker version 0.26.2. The new
upstream version is 0.27.
Do I -
1. tar zxvf upstream_src.tgz
2. Apply the .diff that was generated when I produced 0.26.2 (and get rid
of the files li
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 01:56:24PM -0800, Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
> > But I want to build a total of four packages - aspell (containing the
> > binaries), libaspell0 (containing the libraries), libaspell-dev (containing
> > the header files) and
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 12:19:26PM -0800, Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
> > W: libaspell0: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink usr/lib/libaspell.so.0.0.0
> > usr/lib/libaspell.so
> > usr/lib/libaspell.so.0.0.0
> > usr/lib/libaspell.so -> libaspell.s
Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
> I have not yet uploaded my packages. My packages are available from
> http://www.aunet.org/thaths/hacks/deb/aspell/ Would appreciate if you
> folks took a look and told me if things are OK for an upload.
I have made some progress since that. Lintia
Edward Betts wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Feb, 1999, Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
> > Thanks for all the help guys. I am now packaging aspell into aspell.deb,
> > aspell-dev.deb and aspell-doc.deb Should all of them go into the same
> libaspell0 for the libraries? aspell-bin
Joey Hess wrote:
> All the files above should be broken out into a library package, and a -dev
> package. See the packaging manual for details.
Thanks for all the help guys. I am now packaging aspell into aspell.deb,
aspell-dev.deb and aspell-doc.deb Should all of them go into the same
section (
I am in the process of packaging aspell (and gaspell - a gtk front end
to aspell). When I take a virgin upstream source and package it up
(using dpkg-buildpackage) I get one huge Debian package.
Here is a listing (edited for brevity) of the contents of the package -
$ dpkg --contents
drwxr-xr-x
I have been using debmake+devscripts to build my debian packages till
now. How does this compare to debhelper? Also, I remember seeing some
post in debian-devel which said that one of these (debmake or debhelper)
is being orphaned or is no longer in active development. Should I move
to debhelper
I am in the process of packaging linbot - a python script to do link
verification. I have a few questions -
1. linbot.py and associated *.py files need to be installed in the same
directory. I was thinking of installing these under /usr/lib/linbot/
Is this the Right Thing to do?
2. I will ln -
I took up the packaging of LLNL xdir (a non-free package) quite a few
weeks back. I have since uploaded to master (to
/home/Debian/ftp/private/project/Incoming/) via dupload twice. The
package has not made it to slink. The same is happening with another
package of mine (imaptool). My changelog
Shaleh wrote:
> I thought I did see someone working on this??
I forgot to mention in my post. Even if someone else is working on it, I'd
like to try packaging it just to understand the packaging system bettwe.
> Menu support is nice.
I am looking at the control files of the other window manager
I am beginning the packaging of the blackbox window manager
(http://linux.wiw.org/blackbox/). Have not expressed my intent to package
yet. I have a few questions -
1. Any suggestions on how I could make my job of interacting with the menu
system easier?
2. The source comes with an Imakefile -
/
Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
>
> I am packaging imaptool using deb helper scripts. I am able to generate the
> package. However, lintian complains like so -
>
> E: imaptool: md5sums-lists-nonexisting-file e
> E: imaptool: file-missing-in-md5sums usr/X11R6/bin/imaptool
I am packaging imaptool using deb helper scripts. I am able to generate the
package. However, lintian complains like so -
E: imaptool: md5sums-lists-nonexisting-file e
E: imaptool: file-missing-in-md5sums usr/doc/imaptool/README.debian
E: imaptool: file-missing-in-md5sums usr/doc/imaptool/change
I have finally done it. Had to wade through reams of documentation before I
got it right. Have finally managed to package a dynamically linked (against
lesstif) xdir (A motif based FTP client). lintian has stopped complaining.
What is the easiest method to upload it to master? And what happen
I am no mentor. But since I had given some thought about this in the past,
here goes -
Bob Hilliard wrote:
> Would it be preferable to make two packages, one containing only
> the client and the other containing the server, or make one package
> containing both client and server? If making
I have finally managed to get 'build' properly building my package. I
notice that at the end of the run where pgp is invoked to sign the package I
get the following error -
Key matching userid 'Sudhakar Chandrasekharan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' not
found in file &
Where do I add the '-static' (or is it -B static?) flag in the following
line?
gcc -o foo -02 -fno-strength-reduce -L/usr/X11R6/lib bar.o blat.o -lXm -lXt
-lSM -lICE -lXext -lX11
I want motif to be statically compiled.
S.
--
"If a gun can protect something as important as a bar, it is good
How do I find out which libraries a binary links statically to and which
libraries a binary links dynamically to?
Is it something I find out using ldd? How do I interpret the listing
provided by ldd?
Thaths
--
"If a gun can protect something as important as a bar, it is good
enough t
So finally I have located a package (xdir) that nobody is working on. I
want to build a test package and see if I am qualified enough to become a
official Debian developer. Here is what I do -
1. tar zxvf the package.
2. cd directory_of_package
3. deb-make
4. cd debian
5. rm *.ex
This is
28 matches
Mail list logo
