Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Oh, i hate it. Thats UPSTREAM WORK. Nothing for Debian
>> Packages. Makes unneccessary big debian diff.gz.
> That's quite arguable. Upstreams often don't care about updating
> config.guess and config.sub, and don't realize how often it's needed for
> p
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:09:33PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> - ifneq "$(wildcard /usr/share/misc/config.sub)" ""
> cp -f /usr/share/misc/config.sub config.sub
> endif
> ifneq "$(wildcard /usr/share/misc/config.guess)" ""
> cp -f /usr/share/misc/config.guess config.guess
> endif
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Martes, 11 de Marzo de 2003 12:09, Joerg Jaspert escribió:
> (I wont sponsor it, i have not enough time).
Thank you ver much Joerg.
I am still not looking for an sponsor... just for advice in Debian packaging
;-)
> Except that its good.
I will ch
Jaime Robles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have recently package an application i am developing (KLog) and i would
> like
> to ask a Debian developer to checkif it is well packaged.
(I wont sponsor it, i have not enough time).
Just a quick look at the diff.gz:
- You dont need to do anything
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Oh, i hate it. Thats UPSTREAM WORK. Nothing for Debian
>> Packages. Makes unneccessary big debian diff.gz.
> That's quite arguable. Upstreams often don't care about updating
> config.guess and config.sub, and don't realize how often it's needed for
> p
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:09:33PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> - ifneq "$(wildcard /usr/share/misc/config.sub)" ""
> cp -f /usr/share/misc/config.sub config.sub
> endif
> ifneq "$(wildcard /usr/share/misc/config.guess)" ""
> cp -f /usr/share/misc/config.guess config.guess
> endif
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Martes, 11 de Marzo de 2003 12:09, Joerg Jaspert escribió:
> (I wont sponsor it, i have not enough time).
Thank you ver much Joerg.
I am still not looking for an sponsor... just for advice in Debian packaging
;-)
> Except that its good.
I will ch
Jaime Robles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have recently package an application i am developing (KLog) and i would like
> to ask a Debian developer to checkif it is well packaged.
(I wont sponsor it, i have not enough time).
Just a quick look at the diff.gz:
- You dont need to do anything wit
>
> samth# lintian --version
> Lintian v1.20.6
> samth# lintian -i uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> W: uf-view source: newer-standards-version 3.5.2.0
>
> I presume this is a lintian bug. Right?
>
I need to add new policy to the list of known policy. However, i only do this
when lintian fully und
>
> samth# lintian --version
> Lintian v1.20.6
> samth# lintian -i uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> W: uf-view source: newer-standards-version 3.5.2.0
>
> I presume this is a lintian bug. Right?
>
I need to add new policy to the list of known policy. However, i only do this
when lintian fully un
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:04:18PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:56:16AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > > >From current policy:
> > >
> > > When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> > > only those packages explicitly required by the build.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:56:16AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > >From current policy:
> >
> > When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> > only those packages explicitly required by the build. It is not
> > necessary to list packages which are required merely
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> Well, sort of. For the packe in question, it does. But say there was
> a package that depended on both GLib and GNOME (say, by including
If your package directly depends on another, declare it. The depends that
are to be left 'implicit' are those of the packa
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:32:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:16:16PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > > $ lintian --version
> > > Lintian v1.20.6
> > > $ lintian uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> > > E: uf-view source: package-uses-debhelper-but-lacks-build-depends
> >
> > Fixed,
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 01:04:18PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:56:16AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > > >From current policy:
> > >
> > > When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> > > only those packages explicitly required by the build
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:56:16AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > >From current policy:
> >
> > When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> > only those packages explicitly required by the build. It is not
> > necessary to list packages which are required merel
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> Well, sort of. For the packe in question, it does. But say there was
> a package that depended on both GLib and GNOME (say, by including
If your package directly depends on another, declare it. The depends that
are to be left 'implicit' are those of the pack
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:32:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >From current policy:
>
> When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> only those packages explicitly required by the build. It is not
> necessary to list packages which are required merely be
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:32:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:16:16PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > > $ lintian --version
> > > Lintian v1.20.6
> > > $ lintian uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> > > E: uf-view source: package-uses-debhelper-but-lacks-build-depends
> >
> > Fixed
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:32:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >From current policy:
>
> When specifying the set of build-time dependencies, one should list
> only those packages explicitly required by the build. It is not
> necessary to list packages which are required merely b
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:16:16PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > $ lintian --version
> > Lintian v1.20.6
> > $ lintian uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> > E: uf-view source: package-uses-debhelper-but-lacks-build-depends
>
> Fixed, I think. I removed every possibly related package I could find
> from my ch
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:16:16PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > $ lintian --version
> > Lintian v1.20.6
> > $ lintian uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> > E: uf-view source: package-uses-debhelper-but-lacks-build-depends
>
> Fixed, I think. I removed every possibly related package I could find
> from my c
> > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:25:01PM +0100,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Hmm, the configure file should also check for ghttp.h, it didnt
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 06:21:13PM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> > This produces unnecessary hassles when, for instance, cross
> > compiling.
On S
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> Most likely cause, debian/docs or debian/$package.docs. If you used
> dh_make, it seems to pick up INSTALL. Maybe a bug should be filed
> against dh_make?
Yeah, dh_make should be modified to only add those files in @DOCS if
configure
> > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:25:01PM +0100,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Hmm, the configure file should also check for ghttp.h, it didnt
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 06:21:13PM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> > This produces unnecessary hassles when, for instance, cross
> > compiling.
On
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 06:21:13PM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> On Saturday 24 February 2001 14:22, Sam TH wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:25:01PM +0100,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Hmm, the configure file should also check for ghttp.h, it didnt
>
> This produces unnecessary hassles w
On Saturday 24 February 2001 14:22, Sam TH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:25:01PM +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Yet another thing: your Build-depends seems wrong.
> > Policy says: 'A source package may declare a dependency or a
> > conflict on a binary package', but your are depending o
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> Most likely cause, debian/docs or debian/$package.docs. If you used
> dh_make, it seems to pick up INSTALL. Maybe a bug should be filed
> against dh_make?
Yeah, dh_make should be modified to only add those files in @DOCS if
configur
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 06:21:13PM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> On Saturday 24 February 2001 14:22, Sam TH wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:25:01PM +0100,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Hmm, the configure file should also check for ghttp.h, it didnt
>
> This produces unnecessary hassles
On Saturday 24 February 2001 14:22, Sam TH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:25:01PM +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Yet another thing: your Build-depends seems wrong.
> > Policy says: 'A source package may declare a dependency or a
> > conflict on a binary package', but your are depending
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:25:01PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:16:16PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > samth# lintian --version
> > Lintian v1.20.6
> > samth# lintian -i uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> > W: uf-view source: newer-standards-version 3.5.2.0
> >
> > I presume th
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:16:16PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> samth# lintian --version
> Lintian v1.20.6
> samth# lintian -i uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> W: uf-view source: newer-standards-version 3.5.2.0
>
> I presume this is a lintian bug. Right?
No, this is because your standards version is 3.5.0,
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 08:30:49AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > you also fail to install a menu file. I am coming up with a
> > lintian check for packages linked to X and not installing one. So
> > you reminded me of another bug (-:
No, i'm sure you wouldn't do that. :) libggi-target-
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:25:01PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:16:16PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > samth# lintian --version
> > Lintian v1.20.6
> > samth# lintian -i uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> > W: uf-view source: newer-standards-version 3.5.2.0
> >
> > I presume t
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:16:16PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> samth# lintian --version
> Lintian v1.20.6
> samth# lintian -i uf-view_1.2-2_i386.changes
> W: uf-view source: newer-standards-version 3.5.2.0
>
> I presume this is a lintian bug. Right?
No, this is because your standards version is 3.5.0
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 08:30:49AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > you also fail to install a menu file. I am coming up with a
> > lintian check for packages linked to X and not installing one. So
> > you reminded me of another bug (-:
No, i'm sure you wouldn't do that. :) libggi-target
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 08:30:49AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> On 23-Feb-2001 Sam TH wrote:
> > I'm an illustrious member of the NM queue, and have completed a
> > package that I would be very grateful if people would check for me, to
> > make sure that I haven't missed anything. It prod
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 08:30:49AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> On 23-Feb-2001 Sam TH wrote:
> > I'm an illustrious member of the NM queue, and have completed a
> > package that I would be very grateful if people would check for me, to
> > make sure that I haven't missed anything. It pro
On 02/23/01 Sam TH wrote:
> > It's missing build-dependencies.
>
> Added. However, is there a good way to check build-depends, or do you
> just have to guess?
There are some tools discussed on debian-devel that help
finding dependencies, search the archive for them. The most
predictable way, tho
On 23-Feb-2001 Sam TH wrote:
> I'm an illustrious member of the NM queue, and have completed a
> package that I would be very grateful if people would check for me, to
> make sure that I haven't missed anything. It produces no errors or
> warnings with lintian.
>
> The package is uf-view, and i
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 09:59:51AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 04:08:05PM +0100, Paolo Molaro wrote:
> > On 02/23/01 Sam TH wrote:
> > > I'm an illustrious member of the NM queue, and have completed a
> > > package that I would be very grateful if people would check for me, to
>
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 04:08:05PM +0100, Paolo Molaro wrote:
> On 02/23/01 Sam TH wrote:
> > I'm an illustrious member of the NM queue, and have completed a
> > package that I would be very grateful if people would check for me, to
> > make sure that I haven't missed anything. It produces no error
On 02/23/01 Sam TH wrote:
> > It's missing build-dependencies.
>
> Added. However, is there a good way to check build-depends, or do you
> just have to guess?
There are some tools discussed on debian-devel that help
finding dependencies, search the archive for them. The most
predictable way, th
On 02/23/01 Sam TH wrote:
> I'm an illustrious member of the NM queue, and have completed a
> package that I would be very grateful if people would check for me, to
> make sure that I haven't missed anything. It produces no errors or
> warnings with lintian.
>
> The package is uf-view, and it's
On 23-Feb-2001 Sam TH wrote:
> I'm an illustrious member of the NM queue, and have completed a
> package that I would be very grateful if people would check for me, to
> make sure that I haven't missed anything. It produces no errors or
> warnings with lintian.
>
> The package is uf-view, and
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 09:59:51AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 04:08:05PM +0100, Paolo Molaro wrote:
> > On 02/23/01 Sam TH wrote:
> > > I'm an illustrious member of the NM queue, and have completed a
> > > package that I would be very grateful if people would check for me, to
>
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 04:08:05PM +0100, Paolo Molaro wrote:
> On 02/23/01 Sam TH wrote:
> > I'm an illustrious member of the NM queue, and have completed a
> > package that I would be very grateful if people would check for me, to
> > make sure that I haven't missed anything. It produces no erro
On 02/23/01 Sam TH wrote:
> I'm an illustrious member of the NM queue, and have completed a
> package that I would be very grateful if people would check for me, to
> make sure that I haven't missed anything. It produces no errors or
> warnings with lintian.
>
> The package is uf-view, and it's
48 matches
Mail list logo
