Re: SVN snapshot versioning

On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:39:30AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.01.23.0115 +0100]: > > So for a snapshot of revision 91 between stable version 2.0 and future > > version 2.1, would something like: > >2.1~20070123svn.r91 > > Why bother w

Re: Lintian error: executable-in-usr-doc

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Joey Hess wrote: > > > E: mh-book: executable-in-usr-doc > > > usr/doc/mh-book/html/download/split/mh/bin/incs 0755 > > > > > > So, can I let these example scripts be executable, or not? > > > > Examples should go in /usr/doc/exa

Re: Checking if directory is empty in postrm

On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > I need something that returns an error code if the directory is empty but > does return 0 if it is non-empty. $ dirname="whatever_you_want_to_check" $ count=$(ls -A1 $dirname 2>/dev/null | wc -l) $ echo $count I love shell... BTW, you need the /dev

Re: updates to upstream packages

On 16 Jun 1998, James Troup wrote: > dpkg-source handles (non-binary) inclusions fine; see 3.3 of the > packaging manual. This explains why dpkg did not complain when I added manpages. The file I'm trying to include is a binary file (of sorts - it's an extra version of the Sangoma firmware). >

post-upload procedures/transition from unstable to stable

I've RTFM and don't really find reference to what happens after a package upload and the announcement email. Partly, I'm just interested in what happens, but I'd also like to know about the process of getting a package into stable. (The 2 packages I've adopted were both in "unstable".) How repon

changes to packaging tools between bo and hamm

Debian Mentors, I'm working on the wanpipe package, which will have both bo-unstable and hamm versions, so I'm working on two different machines. On my bo machine, during dpkg-buildpackage, it lets pgp decide who is going to sign the file (using PGPPATH to point to a config.txt with MYNAME=<[EMAI

Re: ongoing support for bo/libc5

On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Jim wrote: > tmancill wrote: > > But the more I think about it, the more I believe > > that there will be a large number of router admins out there who won't be > > jumping to upgrade to hamm. > > There is a mechanism installed to allow th

ongoing support for bo/libc5

First my disclaimer - I'm quite the newbie to Debian-maintainership. I am working on the wanpipe package, initially developed. Back when he have gave me the package, he indicated that it needed updates for hamm, which I have completed. But the more I think about it, the more I believe that there