Re: Versionned dependancies on build-essential packages. (was: Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?)

2007-02-24 Thread Andreas Metzler
ust wondering the reason why the build-dependancy on dpkg-dev is > necessary. Dpkg-dev is build-essential and is > 1.13.19 in unstable and > testing anyway. Couldn't this be safely omitted when uploading for > unstable ? It is indeed not necessary for unstable, but it makes

Re: Versionned dependancies on build-essential packages. (was: Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?)

2007-02-24 Thread Justin Pryzby
d from -devel diverted to -mentors.] > > Hi, > > I was just wondering the reason why the build-dependancy on dpkg-dev is > necessary. Dpkg-dev is build-essential and is > 1.13.19 in unstable and > testing anyway. Couldn't this be safely omitted when uploading for > unstable ?

Versionned dependancies on build-essential packages. (was: Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?)

2007-02-23 Thread Charles Plessy
}) > > Package: foo-binary > Architecture: any > Depends: foo-data (= ${source:Version}) > > Package: foo-doc > Architecture: all [Thread from -devel diverted to -mentors.] Hi, I was just wondering the reason why the build-dependancy on dpkg-dev is necessary. Dpkg-dev is build-essential

Re: build-essential / native-package-with-dash-version ?

2006-11-29 Thread Hubert Chan
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:03:22 -0500, "Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > "Hubert Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:30:03 -0300, "andremachado" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>> The executable-not-elf-or-script I guess will continue. Jar

Re: build-essential / native-package-with-dash-version ?

2006-11-28 Thread Joe Smith
"Hubert Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:30:03 -0300, "andremachado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: The executable-not-elf-or-script I guess will continue. Jar, war, policy and stamp are generated by the compilation and are the results. I do

Re: build-essential / native-package-with-dash-version ?

2006-11-28 Thread Hubert Chan
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:30:03 -0300, "andremachado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hello, Many thanks for all suggestions. the > http://php-java-bridge.sf.net states some specific minimal versions of > gcc, make, automake, java, etc. So, I included these versions on > debian/control file. If the mi

Re: build-essential / native-package-with-dash-version ?

2006-11-28 Thread Thibaut Paumard
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:30:03 -0300 "andremachado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The native-package-with-dash-version warning is still without solution. I read > again the Debian Policy (my english skill is bare minimum) and still not find > how to rename package and use > debuild -rfakeroot -uc -us

build-essential / native-package-with-dash-version ?

2006-11-28 Thread andremachado
Hello, Many thanks for all suggestions. the http://php-java-bridge.sf.net states some specific minimal versions of gcc, make, automake, java, etc. So, I included these versions on debian/control file. The remaining warnings can be seen at http://paste.debian.net/17466 until nov 30th. The native-p

build-essential

2003-05-29 Thread Neil Roeth
What determines when the build daemon compilers gets changed? I see that the build-essential package that I have installed on my machine depends on g++ (>= 3:3.2), but the g++ package itself depends on g++-3.3, so that means that normal upgrades have made 3.3 the default compiler on my mach

build-essential

2003-05-29 Thread Neil Roeth
What determines when the build daemon compilers gets changed? I see that the build-essential package that I have installed on my machine depends on g++ (>= 3:3.2), but the g++ package itself depends on g++-3.3, so that means that normal upgrades have made 3.3 the default compiler on my mach