Hi,
I've sent a patch to trac-bitten package. It was committed into Python
application team repository. What should I do now to make the package
released?
Please, CC.
--
anatoly t.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 04:42:03PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 04:39:20PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > I checked, and dh currently doesn't support build-arch and build-indep
> > at all internally (you need to add the rules yourself). I've made a
> > patch to add proper sup
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 04:39:20PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I checked, and dh currently doesn't support build-arch and build-indep
> at all internally (you need to add the rules yourself). I've made a
> patch to add proper support which I'll submit once I've tested it.
FWIW, the current progre
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 05:03:39PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 07:09:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >>
> >> Now why does it only list 8k sources if it matches the required
> >> "build:" target? Are 50% of all sources already d
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 07:09:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > Output at http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/build-rule-check.bz2
>> > I haven't had time to analyse this, if someone else wants to,
>> > that would be cool.
>> >
>> > Done on lintian.debian.org using t
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 07:09:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Output at http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/build-rule-check.bz2
> > I haven't had time to analyse this, if someone else wants to,
> > that would be cool.
> >
> > Done on lintian.debian.org using the following:
> >
> > #!/bin/
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 08:23:59PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 01:29:12PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> > In <20101120183255.gf12...@khazad-dum.debian.net>, Henrique de Moraes
>> > Holschuh
>> > wrote:
>> > >On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Boyd Step
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 08:23:59PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 01:29:12PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > In <20101120183255.gf12...@khazad-dum.debian.net>, Henrique de Moraes
> > Holschuh
> > wrote:
> > >On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > >> >
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 01:29:12PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <20101120183255.gf12...@khazad-dum.debian.net>, Henrique de Moraes
> Holschuh
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >> >But hey, all the maintainer has to do is add 1, in words ONE, char to
> >
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." writes:
> In <20101120183255.gf12...@khazad-dum.debian.net>, Henrique de Moraes
> Holschuh
> wrote:
>>On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>> >But hey, all the maintainer has to do is add 1, in words ONE, char to
>>> >debian/rules. Just change "build:" to
In <20101120183255.gf12...@khazad-dum.debian.net>, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> >But hey, all the maintainer has to do is add 1, in words ONE, char to
>> >debian/rules. Just change "build:" to "build%:" and dpkg-buildpackage
>> >could us
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >But hey, all the maintainer has to do is add 1, in words ONE, char to
> >debian/rules. Just change "build:" to "build%:" and dpkg-buildpackage
> >could use build-arch/indep targets instead of build. Aparently that is
> >too much to ask.
>
> I v
Le Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:30:00PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. a écrit :
>
> I volunteer to make /this/ fix to any package that is unmaintained or whose
> maintainer is unresponsive, *if* Debian will change policy to /require/ build-
> arch/indep and make dpkg-buildpackage use them instead of b
Goswin likely refers to this thread: Buildd & binary-indep
>>> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/09/msg00590.html
>>> > Message-id: <20100924204433.ga4...@apache.rbscorp.ru>
>>>
>>> Buildds install only Build-Depends but not Build-Depends
ttp://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/09/msg00590.html
>> > Message-id: <20100924204433.ga4...@apache.rbscorp.ru>
>> >
>> >
>> > Best regards
>> >
>> > David Kalnischkies
>>
>> And in short:
>>
>> Buildds install only Build-
-id: <20100924204433.ga4...@apache.rbscorp.ru>
> >
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > David Kalnischkies
>
> And in short:
>
> Buildds install only Build-Depends but not Build-Depends-Indep but still
> call the "build" target. In reality the "bui
borate ?
>
> Goswin likely refers to this thread: Buildd & binary-indep
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/09/msg00590.html
> Message-id: <20100924204433.ga4...@apache.rbscorp.ru>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> David Kalnischkies
And in short:
Buildds ins
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 19:25, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:07:07PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> And as discussed before policy disagrees with reality in this.
>
> Would you please elaborate ?
Goswin likely refers to this thread: Buildd & binary-indep
http://lists.de
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:07:07PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> And as discussed before policy disagrees with reality in this.
>
---end quoted text---
Would you please elaborate ?
--
أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy)
Digital design engineer
GPG KeyID: 0xEDDDA1B7
GPG Fingerprint
anatoly techtonik writes:
> Hello,
>
> I've described situation around Build-Depends-Indep at
> http://wiki.debian.org/Build-Depends-Indep
> I hope it will be useful for people who are looking for description of
> this field. However, I am not expert in packaging, an
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> anatoly techtonik wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Ø£ØÙ
د اÙÙ
ØÙ
ÙدÙ
>>
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I thought Build-Depends-Indep is for build-deps that are not needed by
>&g
anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:02 AM, أحمد المحمودي
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I thought Build-Depends-Indep is for build-deps that are not needed by
>> clean target.
>
> What is the meaning of name "Build-Depends-Indep" t
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:02 AM, أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I thought Build-Depends-Indep is for build-deps that are not needed by
> clean target.
What is the meaning of name "Build-Depends-Indep" then? Dependencies
that are required to build package, but from
Hello,
I thought Build-Depends-Indep is for build-deps that are not needed by
clean target.
--
أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy)
Digital design engineer
GPG KeyID: 0xEDDDA1B7
GPG Fingerprint: 8206 A196 2084 7E6D 0DF8 B176 BC19 6A94 EDDD A1B7
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Hello,
I've described situation around Build-Depends-Indep at
http://wiki.debian.org/Build-Depends-Indep
I hope it will be useful for people who are looking for description of
this field. However, I am not expert in packaging, and some
information is obviously missing. If you can fill the b
anatoly techtonik writes:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Goswin von Brederlow
> wrote:
>> Ansgar Burchardt writes:
>>
>>> anatoly techtonik writes:
>>>
>>>> Can anybody point me to the part of the policy where Build-Depends and
&g
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Goswin von Brederlow
wrote:
> Ansgar Burchardt writes:
>
>> anatoly techtonik writes:
>>
>>> Can anybody point me to the part of the policy where Build-Depends and
>>> Build-Depends-Indep differences are explained?
&g
Ansgar Burchardt writes:
> anatoly techtonik writes:
>
>> Can anybody point me to the part of the policy where Build-Depends and
>> Build-Depends-Indep differences are explained?
>
> They differ in when they must be satisfied (that is for running which
> target in
anatoly techtonik writes:
> Can anybody point me to the part of the policy where Build-Depends and
> Build-Depends-Indep differences are explained?
They differ in when they must be satisfied (that is for running which
target in debian/rules). See Section 7.7 [1].
Regards,
Ansgar
[1]
Le Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:12:06AM +0300, anatoly techtonik a écrit :
> Can anybody point me to the part of the policy where Build-Depends and
> Build-Depends-Indep differences are explained?
Dear Anatoly,
the rationale is explained in the footnote:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-
Can anybody point me to the part of the policy where Build-Depends and
Build-Depends-Indep differences are explained?
Please, CC.
Thanks.
--
anatoly t.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sandro Tosi
Date: Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Build-Depends-Indep dependencies
Hello Joachim,
Joachim Reichel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I had the idea to finally separate the build-dependencies between
>> Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep in debian/control. The criterion is
>> the
>> following: put in Build-Depends all thos
Debian autobuilder.
>
> The problem is that sbuild invokes the build target (which also depends
> on build-indep), but does not pay attention to Build-Depends-Indep.
There is a thread about this mess currently running on debian-devel. It
was started with the following message:
http://lis
Hi,
> I had the idea to finally separate the build-dependencies between
> Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep in debian/control. The criterion is the
> following: put in Build-Depends all those packages that are absolutely
> necessary to build architecture-dependent files (e.g. y
[In the event of any reply, please CC me.]
Hi!
I encountered a few silly errors with my package that I could have prevented,
and I wish to share my experiences to the rest.
I had the idea to finally separate the build-dependencies between
Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep in debian/control
I demand that Joachim Reichel may or may not have written...
>> The underlying problem is that build-arch/indep are not mandatory and thus
>> building must call the "build" target.
> Any chance that this will be changed for lenny? If build-arch and
> build-indep are optional and there is no relia
Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The underlying problem is that build-arch/indep are not mandatory and
>> thus building must call the "build" target.
>
> This makes sense, thanks for pointing it out.
>
>> If build-indep does take a c
xist, what's the use? The logic behind it looks
flawed to me (in particular in combination with Build-Depends-Indep).
> If build-indep does take a considerable time then you can use the
> following hack:
[...]
Which is basically the same as moving the build-indep stuff to
binary-indep,
While we're at it, you should also consider adding the appropriate
texlive packages to your B-D as an alternative to the tetex packages.
Sooner or later (may well happen for lenny), the tetex packages will be
removed, so you'll have to do that anyway.
--
Florent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The underlying problem is that build-arch/indep are not mandatory and
> thus building must call the "build" target.
This makes sense, thanks for pointing it out.
> If build-indep does take a considerable time then you can use the
> following hack
Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Joachim Reichel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> section 7.6 of the policy states that Build-Depends-Indep must be
>> satisfied if the build target is invoked.
>
> [...]
>
>&
Hi,
Joachim Reichel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> section 7.6 of the policy states that Build-Depends-Indep must be
> satisfied if the build target is invoked.
[...]
> Now, if my sponsor uploads this package, it will still fail, right? If
> Build-Depends-I
Hi,
section 7.6 of the policy states that Build-Depends-Indep must be
satisfied if the build target is invoked. Consider the log file of
core++ on ia64:
http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=core%2B%2B&ver=1.7-6&arch=ia64&stamp=1165413626&file=log&as=raw
The buil
ldd didn't install the Build-Depends-Indep dependency (tetex-bin)
before running dpkg-buildpackage (which in turn calls debian/rules build).
Therefore the build died in the debian/rules build-indep target.
Is this expected? According to debian-policy section 7.6 and footnote 36,
Build-D
ldd didn't install the Build-Depends-Indep dependency (tetex-bin)
before running dpkg-buildpackage (which in turn calls debian/rules build).
Therefore the build died in the debian/rules build-indep target.
Is this expected? According to debian-policy section 7.6 and footnote 36,
Build-D
Hi,
I just got an FTBFS bug on cernlib from a buildd. The problem is that the
buildd didn't install the Build-Depends-Indep dependency (tetex-bin)
before running dpkg-buildpackage (which in turn calls debian/rules build).
Therefore the build died in the debian/rules build-indep target.
Is
Hi,
I just got an FTBFS bug on cernlib from a buildd. The problem is that the
buildd didn't install the Build-Depends-Indep dependency (tetex-bin)
before running dpkg-buildpackage (which in turn calls debian/rules build).
Therefore the build died in the debian/rules build-indep target.
Is
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What concern do porters have with architecture-all-only-packages?
>
> With most Arch: all packages, little to none. The concern is actually in
> *not* having stuff that is *only* needed for -indep targets (which will
> generally never be built by porting ma
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What concern do porters have with architecture-all-only-packages?
>
> With most Arch: all packages, little to none. The concern is actually in
> *not* having stuff that is *only* needed for -indep targets (which will
> generally never be built by porting ma
ires
> >> binary-arch and binary-indep; the first does nothing and the second
> >> builds the package.
> >>
> >> In the original package's control file, there is a line of
> >> Build-Depends-Indep, but no Build-Depends. Does this make sense for a
> &
ires
> >> binary-arch and binary-indep; the first does nothing and the second
> >> builds the package.
> >>
> >> In the original package's control file, there is a line of
> >> Build-Depends-Indep, but no Build-Depends. Does this make sense for a
> &
ghly enough).
Basically I thought that the explanation of binary-arch and binary-indep
combined
with the principle of minimal build-dependencies yields the answer. Especially
the
footnote in paragraph 7.6 (on package relations) seems to shed light on this
(and
shead doubt on the effectiveness of build-depends-indep, oh well).
Cheers
T.
ghly enough).
Basically I thought that the explanation of binary-arch and binary-indep combined
with the principle of minimal build-dependencies yields the answer. Especially the
footnote in paragraph 7.6 (on package relations) seems to shed light on this (and
shead doubt on the effectiveness
only an
>> Emacs-addon written in Lisp, it's of course architecture independent.
>>
>> In debian/rules of the "real" package from unstable, binary requires
>> binary-arch and binary-indep; the first does nothing and the second
>> builds the package.
>&
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> In the original package's control file, there is a line of
>> Build-Depends-Indep, but no Build-Depends. Does this make sense for a
>> source package that has no architecture dependent binary pack
only an
>> Emacs-addon written in Lisp, it's of course architecture independent.
>>
>> In debian/rules of the "real" package from unstable, binary requires
>> binary-arch and binary-indep; the first does nothing and the second
>> builds the package.
>&
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> In the original package's control file, there is a line of
>> Build-Depends-Indep, but no Build-Depends. Does this make sense for a
>> source package that has no architecture dependent binary pack
ure independent.
>
> In debian/rules of the "real" package from unstable, binary requires
> binary-arch and binary-indep; the first does nothing and the second
> builds the package.
>
> In the original package's control file, there is a line of
> Build-De
Frank Küster wrote:
> In the original package's control file, there is a line of
> Build-Depends-Indep, but no Build-Depends. Does this make sense for a
> source package that has no architecture dependent binary packages at
> all? Why not just use Build-Depends here and use Bu
nary requires
binary-arch and binary-indep; the first does nothing and the second
builds the package.
In the original package's control file, there is a line of
Build-Depends-Indep, but no Build-Depends. Does this make sense for a
source package that has no architecture dependent binary packages
ure independent.
>
> In debian/rules of the "real" package from unstable, binary requires
> binary-arch and binary-indep; the first does nothing and the second
> builds the package.
>
> In the original package's control file, there is a line of
> Build-De
Frank Küster wrote:
> In the original package's control file, there is a line of
> Build-Depends-Indep, but no Build-Depends. Does this make sense for a
> source package that has no architecture dependent binary packages at
> all? Why not just use Build-Depends here and use Bu
nary requires
binary-arch and binary-indep; the first does nothing and the second
builds the package.
In the original package's control file, there is a line of
Build-Depends-Indep, but no Build-Depends. Does this make sense for a
source package that has no architecture dependent binary packages
On 20010114T135051-0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> If a source package produces _only_ binary_all packages, is it
> necessary to have a Build-Depends-Indep: field, or is it sufficient to
> have a Build-Depends field?
It is never necessary to have the Build-Depends-Indep field, although
If a source package produces _only_ binary_all packages, is it
necessary to have a Build-Depends-Indep: field, or is it sufficient to
have a Build-Depends field?
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way &
On 20010114T135051-0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> If a source package produces _only_ binary_all packages, is it
> necessary to have a Build-Depends-Indep: field, or is it sufficient to
> have a Build-Depends field?
It is never necessary to have the Build-Depends-Indep field, althou
If a source package produces _only_ binary_all packages, is it
necessary to have a Build-Depends-Indep: field, or is it sufficient to
have a Build-Depends field?
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way &
Cord Beermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When should i use 'Build-Depends-Indep' instead of 'Build-Depends'?
>
>should Build-Depends-Indep be used for Dependencies on
>*_all.deb-Packages, or for Dependencies which were the same on all
>Debian-Architectures
Hi.
When should i use 'Build-Depends-Indep' instead of 'Build-Depends'?
should Build-Depends-Indep be used for Dependencies on
*_all.deb-Packages, or for Dependencies which were the same on all
Debian-Architectures?
Example:
should i set:
Build-Depends: debhelper (&
Cord Beermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When should i use 'Build-Depends-Indep' instead of 'Build-Depends'?
>
>should Build-Depends-Indep be used for Dependencies on
>*_all.deb-Packages, or for Dependencies which were the same on all
>Debian-Architect
Hi.
When should i use 'Build-Depends-Indep' instead of 'Build-Depends'?
should Build-Depends-Indep be used for Dependencies on
*_all.deb-Packages, or for Dependencies which were the same on all
Debian-Architectures?
Example:
should i set:
Build-Depends: debhelper (&
71 matches
Mail list logo
