> > I might be missing something, but what is the soname for
> > libgphoto2 ?
> >
>
> Sorry I don't understand your question.
> Could you reformulate your question?
libgphoto2 Package would probably contain
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2 which is a symlink to
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2.0.0 or something
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:05:26AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Is it not a upstream choice ?
> >
> > But this package include a command-line frontend.
> > Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
> >
> > gphoto2: command-line front-end
> > libgphoto2 : librarie
> Is it not a upstream choice ?
>
> But this package include a command-line frontend.
> Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
>
> gphoto2: command-line front-end
> libgphoto2 : libraries
> libgphoto2-dev : to build others front-ends.
>
> And perhaps a doc packag
> > I might be missing something, but what is the soname for
> > libgphoto2 ?
> >
>
> Sorry I don't understand your question.
> Could you reformulate your question?
libgphoto2 Package would probably contain
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2 which is a symlink to
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2.0.0 or somethin
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
>
> > > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> >
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
>
> > > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> >
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:05:26AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Is it not a upstream choice ?
> >
> > But this package include a command-line frontend.
> > Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
> >
> > gphoto2: command-line front-end
> > libgphoto2 : librari
> Is it not a upstream choice ?
>
> But this package include a command-line frontend.
> Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
>
> gphoto2: command-line front-end
> libgphoto2 : libraries
> libgphoto2-dev : to build others front-ends.
>
> And perhaps a doc packa
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
>
> > > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> >
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
>
> > > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> >
> > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> > gphoto2 installed on their system, or why some people need one and
> >
> > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> > gphoto2 installed on their system, or why some people need one and
>
christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:09:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > > > Hey guys,
> > > >
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:09:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Just done that and
christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
> > > gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
> > gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
>
> Yes, it has to be gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
> See? It has to b
christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:09:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > > > Hey guys,
> > > >
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:09:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Just done that an
christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
> > > gphoto2-2.0beta3.ori
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
> > gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
>
> Yes, it has to be gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
> See? It has to
Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 09:49, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > You have to rename the original tarball to
> > > gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
> >
> > I would not recommend that you d
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 09:49, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You have to rename the original tarball to
> > gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
>
> I would not recommend that you do that for the following
> reason : when the final rele
Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You have to rename the original tarball to
> gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
I would not recommend that you do that for the following
reason : when the final release of gphoto will ge released,
it will be versioned 2.0.
Ho
Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 09:49, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > You have to rename the original tarball to
> > > gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
> >
> > I would not recommend that you
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 09:49, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You have to rename the original tarball to
> > gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
>
> I would not recommend that you do that for the following
> reason : when the final rel
Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You have to rename the original tarball to
> gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
I would not recommend that you do that for the following
reason : when the final release of gphoto will ge released,
it will be versioned 2.0.
H
Hey guys,
christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
> gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
Yes, it has to be gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
See? It has to be a _ not a - between the packagename and the version-
number.
so long...
da
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:52:39AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter where the original
Hey guys,
christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
> gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
Yes, it has to be gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
See? It has to be a _ not a - between the packagename and the version-
number.
so long...
d
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:52:39AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter where the origina
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> >
> > It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> > extracts the tar and applies the Debian d
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:08:02AM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter whe
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> >
> > It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> > extracts the tar and applies
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
>
> It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
> rename the tarball, and you'll be
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> >
> > It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> > extracts the tar and applies the Debian
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:08:02AM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter wh
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
> >
> > It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> > extracts the tar and applie
> But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
rename the tarball, and you'll be set.
> You mean I should only rename it ?
Yep.
pgpaGsE2tzeHm.pgp
D
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
>
> It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
> extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
> rename the tarball, and you'll b
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:13:30PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> You have to rename the original tarball to
> gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
>
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
You mean I should only rename it ?
Christophe
--
Christophe Barb
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:29:08PM -0600, Chris Halls wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > gphoto 2.0? Are
hoto-2.0beta3.tar.gz
> > Note that the upstream is 'gphoto' without '2' but the debian package
> > name is 'gphoto2'
> > The source tree is in
> >gphoto2-2.0beta3/
>
> > But when I build I get
> > dpkg-genchanges: warning: mi
> But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
rename the tarball, and you'll be set.
> You mean I should only rename it ?
Yep.
msg05286/pgp0
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> gphoto2 inst
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:13:30PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> You have to rename the original tarball to
> gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
>
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
You mean I should only rename it ?
Christophe
--
Christophe Bar
But when I build I get
> dpkg-genchanges: warning: missing Section for source files
> dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload
> ...
> dpkg-buildpackage: full upload; Debian-native package (full source is
> included)
>
You have to rename the original tarball to
gphoto2_2
'gphoto2'
> The source tree is in
>gphoto2-2.0beta3/
> But when I build I get
> dpkg-genchanges: warning: missing Section for source files
> dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload
> ...
> dpkg-buildpackage: full upload; Debian-native package (ful
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:29:08PM -0600, Chris Halls wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> > there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> > gphoto 2.0? Are
gphoto-2.0beta3.tar.gz
> > Note that the upstream is 'gphoto' without '2' but the debian package
> > name is 'gphoto2'
> > The source tree is in
> >gphoto2-2.0beta3/
>
> > But when I build I get
> > dpkg-genchanges: war
Section for source files
dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload
...
dpkg-buildpackage: full upload; Debian-native package (full source is included)
Other problem, I got the following message :
dh_gencontrol -pgphoto2
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:De
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
> there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
> gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
> gphoto2 ins
But when I build I get
> dpkg-genchanges: warning: missing Section for source files
> dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload
> ...
> dpkg-buildpackage: full upload; Debian-native package (full source is included)
>
You have to rename the original tarball to
gphoto2_2.0b
'gphoto2'
> The source tree is in
>gphoto2-2.0beta3/
> But when I build I get
> dpkg-genchanges: warning: missing Section for source files
> dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload
> ...
> dpkg-buildpackage: full upload; Debian-native package (
Section for source files
dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload
...
dpkg-buildpackage: full upload; Debian-native package (full source is included)
Other problem, I got the following message :
dh_gencontrol -pgphoto2
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:De
54 matches
Mail list logo
