Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-07 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, Action replay follows. >>"Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>"Zephaniah" == Zephaniah E, Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Zephaniah> A few questions.. Zephaniah> 1: What is a good way for handling the version fields to Zephaniah>reflect that the upstream v

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-06 Thread Adam Di Carlo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Zephaniah> This seems to come up a bit too often, hmm, perhaps Zephaniah> something in the policy could help? > Develoeprs reference, maybe. This is not a policy issue. *perk up* Huh? What? What are we talking a

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-02 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Zephaniah" == Zephaniah E, Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Zephaniah> Ick, perhaps we could use a new field? Umm, I think that is a bad idea. A new field should not be introduced lightly, and having one just because of aesthetics is not acceptable. Zephaniah> This s

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-02 Thread Zephaniah E, Hull
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 02:55:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I tend to prefer versions like 1.04.9.beta10 or > 1.04.9.pre5.beta10 ;-) Ick, perhaps we could use a new field? This seems to come up a bit too often, hmm, perhaps something in the policy could help? Zephaniah E,

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-02 Thread Zephaniah E, Hull
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote: > > >> "ZEH" == Zephaniah E, Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ZEH> On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:51:09AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote: > > >> Could you tell us, which program you are packageing ? > > ZEH> Repackaging really

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-01 Thread Martin Bialasinski
>> "ZEH" == Zephaniah E, Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ZEH> On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:51:09AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote: >> Could you tell us, which program you are packageing ? ZEH> Repackaging really, tleds.. Thats fine. I use it to monitor the ippp0 ISDN device >> Which files / w

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-01 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Zephaniah" == Zephaniah E, Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Zephaniah> A few questions.. 1: What is a good way for handling the Zephaniah> version fields to reflect that the upstream version is a Zephaniah> beta? In this case the upstream version is 1.05beta10, Zephaniah> leaving me w

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-01 Thread Richard Braakman
Joseph Carter wrote: > Lintian checks against current standards version (or as current as it knows > about) You can probably up the standards version to whatever lintian was > built with. => No, there are large areas of policy that lintian does not check. It's a linter, not a validator! Richard

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-01 Thread Dave Swegen
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 06:03 -0500, Zephaniah E, Hull wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:51:09AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote: [stuff deleted] > As far as doing the 2.0 first, errrm, someone else will have to test it > as I'm on 2.1.x kernels, I could do a quick test, but nothing overly > ex

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-01 Thread Zephaniah E, Hull
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:51:09AM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote: > > >> "ZEH" == Zephaniah E, Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ZEH> 3: I've got a package which can be compiled with or without X > ZEH> support, However the X support does not work without changing a > ZEH> few settings in th

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-01 Thread Martin Bialasinski
>> "ZEH" == Zephaniah E, Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ZEH> 3: I've got a package which can be compiled with or without X ZEH> support, However the X support does not work without changing a ZEH> few settings in the X config, as I don't use X I'm not the best ZEH> one to try and figure out wha

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-01 Thread James Troup
"Zephaniah E, Hull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Currently the only lintian warning is a ancient-standards-version, > which I am not wanting to bump up to current until I'm sure its > compliant.. /usr/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.text.gz is your friend. (Well it's mine anyway.) -- J

Re: A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-01 Thread Joseph Carter
On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 07:17:51PM -0500, Zephaniah E, Hull wrote: > 1: What is a good way for handling the version fields to reflect that > the upstream version is a beta? In this case the upstream version is > 1.05beta10, leaving me with a bit of a problem (for when 1.05 is > actually released)..

A few new-maintainer questions.

1998-12-01 Thread Zephaniah E, Hull
A few questions.. 1: What is a good way for handling the version fields to reflect that the upstream version is a beta? In this case the upstream version is 1.05beta10, leaving me with a bit of a problem (for when 1.05 is actually released).. Note that I do have a good reason for packaging the bet