2013/5/14 Emmanuel Bourg :
> Hi all,
>
> I'm updating several Java packages where the source package generates
> two binaries, libfoo-java with the compiled jars and libfoo-java-doc
> with the documentation. Lintian often complains about the missing
> upstream changelog (no-upstream-changelog). Sho
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:24:07AM +0200, Simon Chopin wrote:
> Quoting Jerome BENOIT (2012-07-17 10:11:16)
> > The upstream source package contains no changelog file,
> > but the library website provides matter to extract one for it.
> >
> > I guess that I may have to extract the changelog file f
Hi !
On 17/07/12 10:24, Simon Chopin wrote:
Quoting Jerome BENOIT (2012-07-17 10:11:16)
Hello List:
Hi,
I am package a library from scratch.
The upstream source package contains no changelog file,
but the library website provides matter to extract one for it.
I guess that I may have to ex
Quoting Jerome BENOIT (2012-07-17 10:11:16)
> Hello List:
Hi,
>
> I am package a library from scratch.
> The upstream source package contains no changelog file,
> but the library website provides matter to extract one for it.
>
> I guess that I may have to extract the changelog file from the we
Hello List:
On 11/02/12 22:56, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
The upstream changelog of my package is in LaTeX format: as the
LaTeX is rough enough to be translated to HTML format by TtH, I will
put the HTML translation within the package. Given that, what I am
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> The upstream changelog of my package is in LaTeX format: as the
> LaTeX is rough enough to be translated to HTML format by TtH, I will
> put the HTML translation within the package. Given that, what I am
> supposed to do with the LaTeX changelog source ?
Hi !
On 24/01/12 10:30, Rupert Swarbrick wrote:
Jerome BENOIT writes:
Is there a better way to deal with this `Changes.xml' ?
I guess that I can add some stuff in the makefile to convert it in text
format:
do specific tools exist to convert this kind of changelog in text format ?
If I were y
Jerome BENOIT writes:
>>> Is there a better way to deal with this `Changes.xml' ?
>>> I guess that I can add some stuff in the makefile to convert it in text
>>> format:
>>> do specific tools exist to convert this kind of changelog in text format ?
>>
>> If I were you, I'd ask upstream about that
Hi !
On 24/01/12 02:57, Samuel Bronson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
Thanks for your reply:
You're quite welcome.
On 23/01/12 19:54, Samuel Bronson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Jerome BENOIT
wrote:
Is there a better way to deal with this `Ch
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> Thanks for your reply:
You're quite welcome.
> On 23/01/12 19:54, Samuel Bronson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Jerome BENOIT
>> wrote:
>>> Is there a better way to deal with this `Changes.xml' ?
>>> I guess that I can add
Thanks for your reply:
On 23/01/12 19:54, Samuel Bronson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
Hello List:
I am working on the bibtool package.
The changelog of the upstream package is in XML format and is named
`Changes.xml'.
Right now, I manage it by adding an over
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> Hello List:
>
> I am working on the bibtool package.
> The changelog of the upstream package is in XML format and is named
> `Changes.xml'.
>
> Right now, I manage it by adding an override in the debian/rules file:
>
> override_dh_installcha
Guido van Steen writes:
>> there? (I use debhelper -8.9.0ubuntu1).
> Are you packaging for Debian of for Ubuntu? If I packaged for Debian I
> would not use an Ubuntu version of debhelper...
Both. On my desktop, I use Ubuntu, and when everything goes fine, I
change to a larger computer running De
> there? (I use debhelper -8.9.0ubuntu1).
Are you packaging for Debian of for Ubuntu? If I packaged for Debian I
would not use an Ubuntu version of debhelper...
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Ole Streicher
wrote:
> Ansgar Burchardt writes:
>> Ole Streicher writes:
>>> my upstream package has
Ansgar Burchardt writes:
> Ole Streicher writes:
>> my upstream package has a file "CHANGELOG" which does not get installed
>> by default. When I just include this file name into debian/docs, lintian
>> complains about "wrong-name-for-upstream-changelog".
>
> If you use debhelper compat level 7 o
Hi,
Ole Streicher writes:
> my upstream package has a file "CHANGELOG" which does not get installed
> by default. When I just include this file name into debian/docs, lintian
> complains about "wrong-name-for-upstream-changelog".
If you use debhelper compat level 7 or higher, it should add the f
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:36:25 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Dear list,
my upstream package has a file "CHANGELOG" which does not get
installed
by default. When I just include this file name into debian/docs,
lintian
complains about "wrong-name-for-upstream-changelog".
Is there a simple way to r
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> my upstream package has a file "CHANGELOG" which does not get installed
> by default. When I just include this file name into debian/docs, lintian
> complains about "wrong-name-for-upstream-changelog".
>
> Is there a simple way to rename this
On 04/07/2011 10:46 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> Personally I would do one of the following, in decreasing order of
> preference. You might find that whatever the PDF is built from is
> easier to convert to plain text than the PDF itself. Check in the
> Title/Producer/Creator fields of the PDF for some h
Personally I would do one of the following, in decreasing order of
preference. You might find that whatever the PDF is built from is
easier to convert to plain text than the PDF itself. Check in the
Title/Producer/Creator fields of the PDF for some hints on what might
be the source code for the PDF
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In all the packages I've seen with something like this, the ChangeLog was
> included as changelog.gz and NEWS was included as NEWS.gz.
Yes, please stick to the standard conventions unless upstream differs
by much. If the .tar.gz contains NEWS, and you shi
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In all the packages I've seen with something like this, the ChangeLog was
> included as changelog.gz and NEWS was included as NEWS.gz.
Yes, please stick to the standard conventions unless upstream differs
by much. If the .tar.gz contains NEWS, and you sh
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:35:32AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:16:49AM +0200, peter karlsson wrote:
> > > without seeing the files, why is changelog not "human readable"?
> >
> > Well, because it has a lot of noise, with minor changes to files that
> > are not interestin
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:35:32AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:16:49AM +0200, peter karlsson wrote:
> > > without seeing the files, why is changelog not "human readable"?
> >
> > Well, because it has a lot of noise, with minor changes to files that
> > are not interesti
Ultimately as packager it is your decision. If NEWS is the right file for a
user to see what has changed since the last version (was my bug fixed? di they
implement feature X yet?) then go with that.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:16:49AM +0200, peter karlsson wrote:
> > without seeing the files, why is changelog not "human readable"?
>
> Well, because it has a lot of noise, with minor changes to files that
> are not interesting for those that do not download the source package.
> The NEWS file, o
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry:
> without seeing the files, why is changelog not "human readable"?
Well, because it has a lot of noise, with minor changes to files that
are not interesting for those that do not download the source package.
The NEWS file, on the other hand, just lists the actual compound
cha
Ultimately as packager it is your decision. If NEWS is the right file for a
user to see what has changed since the last version (was my bug fixed? di they
implement feature X yet?) then go with that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:16:49AM +0200, peter karlsson wrote:
> > without seeing the files, why is changelog not "human readable"?
>
> Well, because it has a lot of noise, with minor changes to files that
> are not interesting for those that do not download the source package.
> The NEWS file,
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry:
> without seeing the files, why is changelog not "human readable"?
Well, because it has a lot of noise, with minor changes to files that
are not interesting for those that do not download the source package.
The NEWS file, on the other hand, just lists the actual compound
ch
Why not have both!
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:24:53PM +0200, peter karlsson wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am thinking of removing the upstream source level changelog from the
> binary package for jwhois, and instead use its NEWS file, which
> contains a history in human readable format. Is this wise? Is the
On 18-Sep-2001 peter karlsson wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am thinking of removing the upstream source level changelog from the
> binary package for jwhois, and instead use its NEWS file, which
> contains a history in human readable format. Is this wise? Is there any
> policy on what should be considered t
Why not have both!
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:24:53PM +0200, peter karlsson wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am thinking of removing the upstream source level changelog from the
> binary package for jwhois, and instead use its NEWS file, which
> contains a history in human readable format. Is this wise? Is th
On 18-Sep-2001 peter karlsson wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am thinking of removing the upstream source level changelog from the
> binary package for jwhois, and instead use its NEWS file, which
> contains a history in human readable format. Is this wise? Is there any
> policy on what should be considered
34 matches
Mail list logo
