On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:09:27PM -0800, Hamish wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's been 5 weeks without response, and no luck finding a sponsor on
> IRC, so I'll try a repeat posting. :-)
>
It was not evident (at least for me) when you finished with your refinements.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UN
George Danchev wrote:
> * long package descriptions should be impoved,
> and in my opinoin to the point where a person
> with a driver license could be comfortable to
> read and understand it :) For instance: the
> bullet list of bullet of features, should
> have more explanations; you cold add a
On Monday 16 January 2012 09:09:27 Hamish wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
(just to summarize the log from IRC session, we had)
> It's been 5 weeks without response, and no luck finding a sponsor on
> IRC, so I'll try a repeat posting. :-)
Yeah, a lot of effort has been put into making this packaged properly (
Hi,
an update on ITP progress for the OpenCPN software (opencpn.org).
| the debian/ dir can be viewed here:
|http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-grass/packages/opencpn/trunk/
|
| the .orig tarball can be found here:
|http://pkg-grass.alioth.debian.org/tarballs/
|
|sample data to test it
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Hamish wrote:
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2011-June/010184.html
>
> I feel your cringe, but we need a stable, controlled place with
> history to house the dfsg version of the source tarball; so
> $alioth is it. We could check it in u
Paul W wrote:
> I wasn't talking about repacking the tarball, but adding
> "rm -r path/to/embedded/code/copies" to debian/rules build.
> This ensures that the package will never build against the
> embedded code. You can never be sure if the person doing the
> upload will run lintian, nor that lint
Hamish:
> > I've no answer, but I notice that `apt-file search
> > paypal` turns up a handful of other debian packages in the
> > same boat, for good or bad.
> >
> > If it is deemed to be copyright/trademark problematic,
> > there should be no trouble going the iceweasel custom
> > graphic route, .
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:34 AM, Hamish wrote:
> I've no answer, but I notice that `apt-file search paypal` turns
> up a handful of other debian packages in the same boat, for good
> or bad.
>
> If it is deemed to be copyright/trademark problematic, there
> should be no trouble going the icewease
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Hamish wrote:
> mmph, IMO .orig should mean "orig", and the .diff should take care of
> the cleanup needed for Debianization. (the exception being dfsg
> incompatible stuff) Lintian will alert us if a change in the cmake rules
> re-embed the libs. (which are suppl
Hi,
(another) update on ITP progress for the OpenCPN software (opencpn.org),
Fixes noted in this email are in the new 2.4.620 release.
> the debian/ dir can be viewed here:
>http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-grass/packages/opencpn/trunk/
>
> the .orig tarball can be found here:
>htt
Paul:
> When building the package I noticed that the gcc command-lines
> had both -O2 and -O3.
-O3 is added by OpenCPN's CMakeLists.txt:
---
IF(NOT WIN32)
ADD_DEFINITIONS( "-Wall -g -fexceptions -rdynamic" )
ADD_DEFINITIONS( "-O3 -fno-strict-aliasing")
ENDIF(NOT WIN32)
---
-O2 seems to come
[several issues mentioned in yesterday's summary have now been
fixed upstream, more on that soon]
Paul wrote:
> > What is the license for src/bitmaps/paypal_donate.xpm?
Hamish:
> -> TODO
> I don't know, but we need to find out as a priority.
I've no answer, but I notice that `apt-file search pay
Hi,
an update on ITP progress for the OpenCPN software (opencpn.org).
Before Anton formally requests the next review, I though I'd take care of
commenting on and clearing out as much of the old business as I can.
the debian/ dir can be viewed here:
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-grass/p
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:15:47AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
> > Hmm, it's very, very rare that I find myself disagreeing with Paul
> > Wise[0]
>
> Hmm, whats [0]?
Oops, sorry; I wasn't aiming for mysteeerious :/ Just thought I'd split
m
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> Hmm, it's very, very rare that I find myself disagreeing with Paul
> Wise[0]
Hmm, whats [0]?
> but I think that the cross-platformness of a package /
> library / toolset might actually be relevant if one looks at Debian not
> merely as an
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 11:37:16AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> A new review:
>
> There are bound to be more things to fix, I'll do another one when the
> issues below are resolved.
[snip]
>
> "cross-platform" isn't relevant in the context of Debian package descriptions.
Hmm, it's very, very rare t
A new review:
There are bound to be more things to fix, I'll do another one when the
issues below are resolved.
Hamish, you should add yourself to the Uploaders, or use `dch --team`
to indicate a GIS team upload.
override_dh_installman shouldn't be needed, best create a
debian/opencpn.manpages f
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Hamish wrote:
> this is an update on this from a year ago:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/02/msg00115.html
>
> after a while and a fair bit of work upstream* I think we're ready for
> another shot at review. *[mainly hard work by Anton and Dave]
Hi,
this is an update on this from a year ago:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/02/msg00115.html
after a while and a fair bit of work upstream* I think we're ready for
another shot at review. *[mainly hard work by Anton and Dave]
In the last year the program has enjoyed phenomenal
Paul Wise wrote:
> The OpenCPN code contains this template:
>
> * Copyright (C) $YEAR$ by $AUTHOR$ *
> * $EMAIL$ *
>
> Upstream really needs to replace these by real information. Some files
> have the right info but still have the template. BTW, the template is
> wrong since (C) is not
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> I'll take a closer look at the package when I'm on a Debian system.
I took a much closer look at the package and in summary; I'd really
like to sponsor this package but it needs a lot of work upstream,
especially in the copyright/license departm
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:47:16PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> I think it would be a good idea, you never know who will look at your
> patches and use them blindly.
>
> >From the lintian tag info it sounds like it is worth it. You'll want
> to remove the files on clean and before ./configure is run.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Anton Martchukov wrote:
> Btw, I noted that most of the packages supply icons to
> /usr/share/pixmaps, but some less amount to /usr/share/icons
> like in case with OpenCPN. Is there any difference between
> those folders, maybe it's better to fix Makefile to instal
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:06:37PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Standards-Version is out of date, please read the upgrading document
> and make any changes appropriate.
>
> debian/watch doesn't really need any comments or blank lines, you can
> remove them. Same for the comment in debian/rules.
>
>
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Anton Martchukov wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "opencpn".
Some comments on the debian.tar.gz part of the source package:
Standards-Version is out of date, please read the upgrading document
and make any changes appropriate.
debian/watch does
25 matches
Mail list logo
