On torsdagen den 16 april 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
> 2009/4/16 Laurent Léonard :
> > So ".dfsg" is a bad suffix ? And "+dfsg" should be used in priority ? If
> > 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort before 1.2.1 why are there different
> > suffixes ? I don't find clear informations about that on the Debian
Le mercredi 29 avril 2009 à 13:20, Patrick Matthäi a écrit :
> Laurent Léonard schrieb:
> > Dear mentors,
> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2+dfsg-1
>
> ...
>
> > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kio-ftps
> >
Laurent Léonard schrieb:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.2+dfsg-1
...
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/kio-ftps
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main
contrib
Le samedi 18 avril 2009 à 22:39, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Laurent Léonard writes:
> > I agree with that. My question only concerns thx "+dfsgX" versioning
> > instead of a simple "+dfsg" suffix in this case where there is only 1
> > documentation file dropped for DFSG reason.
>
> Given that +dfsg1
Laurent Léonard writes:
> I agree with that. My question only concerns thx "+dfsgX" versioning
> instead of a simple "+dfsg" suffix in this case where there is only 1
> documentation file dropped for DFSG reason.
Given that +dfsg1 sorts after +dfsg anyway, I think it's fine to omit the
version n
Le samedi 18 avril 2009 à 03:33, Paul Wise a écrit :
> 2009/4/18 Laurent Léonard :
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the licensing problem only concerns 1
> > documentation file in the package, other ones are under GPL-2+, so I
> > think dfsg versioning isn't needed...
>
> The upstream tarball isn't
2009/4/18 Laurent Léonard :
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the licensing problem only concerns 1
> documentation file in the package, other ones are under GPL-2+, so I think
> dfsg versioning isn't needed...
The upstream tarball isn't fully DFSG-free so we remove the bad bits,
repack and add dfsg
Le jeudi 16 avril 2009 à 03:33, Paul Wise a écrit :
> 2009/4/16 Laurent Léonard :
> > So ".dfsg" is a bad suffix ? And "+dfsg" should be used in priority ? If
> > 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort before 1.2.1 why are there different
> > suffixes ? I don't find clear informations about that on the Deb
2009/4/16 Laurent Léonard :
> So ".dfsg" is a bad suffix ? And "+dfsg" should be used in priority ? If
> 1.2+dfsg/1.2-dfsg/1.2dfsg sort before 1.2.1 why are there different
> suffixes ? I don't find clear informations about that on the Debian policy...
Yes (but not very), yes (or the others), the
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 16:40, Paul Wise a écrit :
> 2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard :
> > So the final version number for the package should be 0.2+dfsg-2 (0.2-1
> > already exists in Sid) ?
>
> Yep.
>
> > What is the difference between ".dfsg", "-dfsg" and "+dfsg" suffixes ?
> > With or without the
2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard :
> So the final version number for the package should be 0.2+dfsg-2 (0.2-1
> already exists in Sid) ?
Yep.
> What is the difference between ".dfsg", "-dfsg" and "+dfsg" suffixes ? With or
> without the "-" character after "dfsg" ?
Sorting. 1.2.dfsg sorts after 1.2.1 b
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 15:58, Paul Wise a écrit :
> 2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard :
> >> * Shouldn't the package has a versioning indicating that it was modified
> >> from upstream, with a dfsg suffix?
> >
> > I'm not sure about that, if a DD could give an opinion on this...
>
> I can't find any
2009/4/15 Laurent Léonard :
>> * Shouldn't the package has a versioning indicating that it was modified
>> from upstream, with a dfsg suffix?
>
> I'm not sure about that, if a DD could give an opinion on this...
I can't find any reference for this but yes, add +dfsg1 to the
upstream version num
Le mercredi 15 avril 2009 à 02:53, Rogério Brito a écrit :
> Hi, Laurent.
>
> IANADD, but I just saw your package. And I have some comments.
>
> On Apr 14 2009, Laurent Léonard wrote:
> > It builds these binary packages:
> > kio-ftps - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4
> >
> > The package appears to be
Hi, Laurent.
IANADD, but I just saw your package. And I have some comments.
On Apr 14 2009, Laurent Léonard wrote:
> It builds these binary packages:
> kio-ftps - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4
>
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
* I'm not so sure about this:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Le samedi 01 novembre 2008 à 17:34, Sandro Tosi a écrit :
> Hi Laurent,
>
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 16:04, Laurent Léonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Dear mentors,
> >
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "kio-ftps".
>
> ...
>
> > kio-ftps - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4
>
> Did you cons
Le samedi 01 novembre 2008 à 17:56, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
> On 2008-11-01, Sandro Tosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Laurent,
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 16:04, Laurent L?onard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> Dear mentors,
> >>
> >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "kio-ftps".
> >
On 2008-11-01, Sandro Tosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
>
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 16:04, Laurent L?onard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dear mentors,
>>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "kio-ftps".
> ...
>> kio-ftps - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4
>
> Did you consider joining
Hi Laurent,
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 16:04, Laurent Léonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "kio-ftps".
...
> kio-ftps - an ftps KIO slave for KDE 4
Did you consider joining KDE packaging team[1] to maintain this
package with tehm and/or ask
Le mardi 07 octobre 2008 à 16:43, Laurent Léonard a écrit :
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "kio-ftps-kde4".
>
> * Package name : kio-ftps-kde4
> Version : 0.2-1
> Upstream Author : Magnus Kulke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://kasablanca
Le mercredi 08 octobre 2008 à 02:01, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Yes, your ‘debian/rules’ should contain only those commands that are
> specific to your package, and not leave any unused examples. The same
> goes for the entire contents of ‘debian/’, too.
OK, now I tried to fully customise the differen
Hi,
> I tried to build my package under Debian Sid but your patch to allow support
> of cmake in dh_make doesn't seem to be already applied in dh-make from Sid...
> What is the best solution ? Applying your patch manually on a dh_make from
> Sid ? Or perhaps you have a dh-make deb package with
Le jeudi 09 octobre 2008 à 00:11, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
> On 2008-10-08, Laurent Léonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --nextPart1282828.IVFam4LvNy
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> >
> > Can
Le jeudi 09 octobre 2008 à 00:06, Paul Gevers a écrit :
> Depending on the sponsor, but most sponsors at the moment appreciate the
> possibility to use debdiff to see the changes you made, so bumping the
> revision number and updating the changelog is for most people the
> appropriate thing to do.
On 2008-10-08, Laurent Léonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --nextPart1282828.IVFam4LvNy
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> Can I simply update the package after the modifications or do I have to=20
>
> Can I simply update the package after the modifications or do I have to
> increment the revision number and add related informations in the changelog
> file ?
Depending on the sponsor, but most sponsors at the moment appreciate the
possibility to use debdiff to see the changes you made, so bum
Can I simply update the package after the modifications or do I have to
increment the revision number and add related informations in the changelog
file ?
--
Laurent Léonard
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 2008-10-07, Laurent Léonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What's with all those commented dh_ foo lines in the rules file ?
>
> Mmm it's default dh_ commands, I suppose I have to delete what I don't need=
> ?
They clutter reading of the rules file, no reason to keep them around.
>
>>
>> You a
Laurent Léonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mmm it's default dh_ commands, I suppose I have to delete what I don't need ?
Yes, your ‘debian/rules’ should contain only those commands that are
specific to your package, and not leave any unused examples. The same
goes for the entire contents of ‘d
Le mardi 07 octobre 2008 à 21:00, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
> I don't have any ftps services to test it with, but kde packaging is not
> new to me, so I can review the packaging at least, but don't expect a
> upload.
I'm new in Debian packaging, any advice are welcome. I use this KIO slave with
a Pr
On 2008-10-07, Laurent Léonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --nextPart1512095.XNzvprD9R2
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "kio-ftps-kde4".
31 matches
Mail list logo
