On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:19:49AM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:46, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:09:18AM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
> >> I have updated (and shortened) the rules file to use the dh7 features.
> >> It has been uploaded on m.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:46, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:09:18AM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
>> I have updated (and shortened) the rules file to use the dh7 features.
>> It has been uploaded on m.d.n [1].
>
> Good! :)
>
> There is one issue, though: By using ./configure
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:09:18AM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
> I have updated (and shortened) the rules file to use the dh7 features.
> It has been uploaded on m.d.n [1].
Good! :)
There is one issue, though: By using ./configure directly you pass away
the chance of working with DEB_*_GNU_TYP
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:03, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:26:53AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:30:31 +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
>>
>> > I'm sorry, I didn't catch that earlier. But since we're still at it: why
>> > don't you use dh7 style debian/
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:05:09 +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
> >> autotools-dev has debhelper helpers/addons since 20100122.1, so
> >> "dh --with autotools_dev $@" (and an appropriate versioned build dep)
> >> should be enough.
> > Wow, never saw that. Thanks for mentioning!
It's rather new, and I
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:03, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:26:53AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:30:31 +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
>>
>> > I'm sorry, I didn't catch that earlier. But since we're still at it: why
>> > don't you use dh7 style debian/
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:26:53AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:30:31 +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, I didn't catch that earlier. But since we're still at it: why
> > don't you use dh7 style debian/rules? I mean, you don't have to, but you
> > can avoid the
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:30:31 +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> I'm sorry, I didn't catch that earlier. But since we're still at it: why
> don't you use dh7 style debian/rules? I mean, you don't have to, but you
> can avoid the whole DEB_*_GNU_TYPE stuff and shorten your rules file to
> a few lines. #
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 02:37:46AM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
> I have added a README.debian explaining the directory changes, and the
> way to configure iptotal with apache2.
>
> (I also modified the README.source file to state quilt instead of dpatch.)
Yeah, about that... you're using 3.0 (
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 08:42:14AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
>
> > *Any* package installing files into /var/www violates FHS/policy as
> > that's the web root for the system admin, not the maintainer. Thus the
> > changes in the package here
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> *Any* package installing files into /var/www violates FHS/policy as
> that's the web root for the system admin, not the maintainer. Thus the
> changes in the package here and the moving around of old files in
> postinst.
Somewhere under /s
Hello Hauke,
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 18:42, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> Hi Ignace,
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 06:19:23PM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:55, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
>> > I'm not convinced your fix is the best way to go. Is iptotal unusable
>> > with apache
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 07:18:36PM +0200, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
> A quick hint below. As I have not got the complete picture, do bare
> with me if I misunderstood the remark.
>
> måndag den 29 mars 2010 klockan 18:42 skrev Jan Hauke Rahm detta:
> > Hi Ignace,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at
A quick hint below. As I have not got the complete picture, do bare
with me if I misunderstood the remark.
måndag den 29 mars 2010 klockan 18:42 skrev Jan Hauke Rahm detta:
> Hi Ignace,
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 06:19:23PM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:55, Jan Ha
Hi Ignace,
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 06:19:23PM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:55, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > I'm not convinced your fix is the best way to go. Is iptotal unusable
> > with apache2? I thought it would be better to support apache2 and
> > perform better ch
Hello Hauke,
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:55, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:09:28AM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
>> Dear mentors,
>>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.3-12
>> of my package "iptotal".
>>
>> It builds these binary packages:
>> iptotal - m
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:09:28AM +0200, Ignace Mouzannar wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.3-12
> of my package "iptotal".
>
> It builds these binary packages:
> iptotal- monitor for IP traffic, not requiring SNMP
>
> The package appears to be li
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.3-12
of my package "iptotal".
It builds these binary packages:
iptotal- monitor for IP traffic, not requiring SNMP
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these bugs: 572246 (grave), 574121 (important)
T
18 matches
Mail list logo
