n a warning,
merely a wishlist item.
Likewise, autopkgtests are nice but I don't really see a way to make one
for this package.
On Oct 7, 2019, at 01:25, Thomas Dettbarn wrote:
Despite my best effords, there are still a handful of lintian warnings left.
Naturally, I would like to g
ne
for this package.
> > > On Oct 7, 2019, at 01:25, Thomas Dettbarn wrote:
> > > Despite my best effords, there are still a handful of lintian warnings
> > > left. Naturally, I would like to get rid of them:
> > >
> > >I debian-watch-uses-insecure-uri
; Hello!
> >
> > Currently, I am trying to get my package dMagnetic into
> > Debian's repository. You can find it at
> >
> > https://mentors.debian.net/package/dmagnetic
> >
> > Despite my best effords, there are still a h
> On Oct 7, 2019, at 01:25, Thomas Dettbarn wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> Currently, I am trying to get my package dMagnetic into
> Debian's repository. You can find it at
>
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/dmagnetic
>
> Despite my best effords, there are
Hello!
Currently, I am trying to get my package dMagnetic into
Debian's repository. You can find it at
https://mentors.debian.net/package/dmagnetic
Despite my best effords, there are still a handful of lintian warnings left.
Naturally, I would like to get rid of them:
– Package is n
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 21:53, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 09:31:12PM +1100, Andrew Worsley wrote:
> > > > I don't have a sponsor (suggestions of where to look welcomed).
> > > https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers
> >
> > I got no bites previously - perhaps I have
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 09:31:12PM +1100, Andrew Worsley wrote:
> > > I don't have a sponsor (suggestions of where to look welcomed).
> > https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers
>
> I got no bites previously - perhaps I have to make a stronger case to
> more users.
Sorry?
> > > 2. The sou
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 20:22, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:05:42PM +1100, Andrew Worsley wrote:
> > I don't have a sponsor (suggestions of where to look welcomed).
> https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers
I got no bites previously - perhaps I have to make a stron
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:05:42PM +1100, Andrew Worsley wrote:
> I don't have a sponsor (suggestions of where to look welcomed).
https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers
> I assume the Errors are show stoppers...
>
> 1. Should I strip out the .exe files from the github repository and
> igno
I am compiling a script writing package (celtx) which compiles on
buster with lintian errors and would appreciate some suggestions about
how to fix them. In particular when should I add overrides or fix the
upstream source (which may prevent it from building on non-debian
machines?)
It's an old pi
Hi,
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:16:47 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> That specification would mean the recipient can choose to redistribute
> the work under *any* of those license conditions. I think that is not
> what you mean to specify.
Absolutely right, it's a combining work and should be used "and".
"Jose G. López" writes:
> License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 or GPL-2.0-only or GPL-3.0-or-later or CC0-1.0
> or CC-BY-3.0 or LGPL-2.1-or-later or GPL-2.0-or-later
That specification would mean the recipient can choose to redistribute
the work under *any* of those license conditions. I think that is not
wha
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 08:22:26AM +0100, Jose G. López wrote:
> License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 or GPL-2.0-only or GPL-3.0-or-later or CC0-1.0
> or CC-BY-3.0 or LGPL-2.1-or-later or GPL-2.0-or-later
The License field is "Formatted text, with synopsis". Only the first line is
the list of license names. In o
Hello!,
I'm packaging gigalomania and want to convert copyright to machine-readable
format but I'm having lintian warnings I don't know how to fix.
The original copyright is here:
http://gigalomania.sourceforge.net/#licences
There are a lot of images with different authors embed
On 09/10/17 19:14, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Ghislain
Please fix the following issues:
W: nfft source: unnecessary-testsuite-autopkgtest-header
W: libnfft3-2: transitional-package-should-be-oldlibs-optional oldlibs/extra
Both of these are already addressed. Are you building from the right
tag?
Hi Ghislain
Please fix the following issues:
W: nfft source: unnecessary-testsuite-autopkgtest-header
W: libnfft3-2: transitional-package-should-be-oldlibs-optional oldlibs/extra
W: libnfft3-doc: embedded-javascript-library
usr/share/doc/libnfft3-doc/html/jquery.js please use libjs-jquery
Thank
Martin,
On 28 April 2016 at 07:51, Gianfranco Costamagna
wrote:
> yep, for signing on github, just sign it, and in "releases" tab you should
> have some "upload additional files"
> where you can upload it (I'm going through my memory)
This process is documented on wiki.d.o[1], although worth me
Hi,
(note: from now on I'll answer to the RFS bug :) )
>OK, great. I called it python3-tldp, given that the preferred
>Python support these days for Debian is Python3 (and I'm following
>tox and other examples).
yep
>My package builds and tests against Python2, but I don't plan on
>botheri
Hello and greetings again Gianfranco,
No problem at all. I wandered around a bit, have made a mistake or
two, improved my package (I think), filed an RFS (in the wrong way
[0]), and of course the ITP [1], but have started to get a feel for
how the whole process is supposed to work.
>just the
Hi Martin, sorry for the lag
>>For python-tldp (source) which creates python3-tldp (binary):
>Rename the upstream or change the name of the source package in
>debian/control to say 'tldp'?
just the changelog and control file (Source section)
the binary is good called python-tldp
>OK. I wi
Thank you again for your replies, Gianfranco,
>>I would like to get both my new package (python3-tldp) and a revised
>>ldp-docbook-stylesheets on the conveyor belt into the Debian
>>universe.
>
>ok
>
>>After trying to understand the flow of work and the current status
>>with these two packages
Hi Martin
>I would like to get both my new package (python3-tldp) and a revised
>ldp-docbook-stylesheets on the conveyor belt into the Debian
>universe.
ok
>After trying to understand the flow of work and the current status
>with these two packages, I have come up with the following plan.
>
Hello,
A week ago, I asked for a bit of orientation advice since I have
needed improvements for the ldp-docbook-stylesheets. With
Gianfranco's advice (thank you, again), I am launched. Since then,
I have:
* played with the existing packaging for ldp-docbook-stylesheets
* learned the ba
Paul,
On 03/07/2013 06:29 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> version 5 is the version we've been using "around here" for a few
> years. There never was an official -5 in Debian, of course, and I'm
> starting to see why.
Fair enough.
>> Two things to mention here: that I stripped "-O2 -g" as well, becaus
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Markus Wanner wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I'm not a DM/DD, but I'll try to help.
>
Thanks! Thats very kind of you to spend your time and share the knowledge.
> On 03/05/2013 05:34 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Hi, everybody. I'm back, now humbled by linitian's might. Inste
Paul,
I'm not a DM/DD, but I'll try to help.
On 03/05/2013 05:34 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Hi, everybody. I'm back, now humbled by linitian's might. Instead
> of putting my blt package revisions onto the mentors server, and
> probably wasting your storage on another not-yet-done package, I
> u
w warnings. What about the rest? These lintian
warnings affected the blt package as it stood before I tried to adopt
it. The blt includes a couple of important patches that solve
segmentation faults, and it fixes up tens of lintian warnings.
At the current time, these are the lintian warnings I&#
* Alexander Reichle-Schmehl , 2011-11-24, 15:11:
... and I think your check for the 32-Bit architecture is incomplete,
but I miss the machine to test that ;)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Which check do you think is
missing?
You do the following:
machine=`uname -m`
[..]
elif [ "$machine
Hi!
Am 24.11.2011 14:19, schrieb Ole Wolf:
>> ... and I think your check for the 32-Bit architecture is incomplete,
>> but I miss the machine to test that ;)
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. Which check do you think is missing?
You do the following:
machine=`uname -m`
[..]
elif [ "$machine
Hi!
Am 24.11.2011 14:41, schrieb Ole Wolf:
> I actually thought I was required to include a copy of the GPL, but
> removing it is easy. :)
For the binary package take a look at /usr/share/common-licenses/. And
IMHO should your debian/copyright make it clear, that the GPL is just
for your packag
Quoting Alexander Reichle-Schmehl :
Others already commented on the lintian warning thing, however looking
at your package it doesn't qualify for main; as long as it downloads
some stuff it qualifies at most contrib, your changelog doesn't actually
describe your changes, you seem to install
Quoting Paul Wise :
What does this app do? Can it not be replaced with something more
standard, say OpenSSL?
The application takes care of authorizing users against a centralized
server using login, password, and a keycard (made of paper; you may laugh
now). It also works as a PKCS#11 key toke
Quoting Alexander Reichle-Schmehl :
... and I think your check for the 32-Bit architecture is incomplete,
but I miss the machine to test that ;)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Which check do you think is missing?
(It installs fine on both 64-bit and 32-bit architectures, though,
inclu
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Ole Wolf wrote:
> That would be a preferred solution, but regrettably not an option. The
> background is that the Danish government has mandated the use of a shared
> authorization service which creates keys for each individual in Denmark. The
> private keys are cr
Quoting Gergely Nagy :
It does condemn your package to contrib at best.
I have no feelings about that at all; I just want to make the package
easily available. :)
Does that require me to submit an RFS somewhere else than here on this list?
--
OLE WOLF[1]
Rødhættevej 4 * 9400 Nørresundby
Ole Wolf writes:
> I could perhaps download the library and include it in the "nemid"
> package, and the first versions of "nemid" actually did just that.
> However, I've been unable to get a response from the company that provides
> the application about the distribution rights of their software
Hi!
Am 24.11.2011 13:57, schrieb Alexander Reichle-Schmehl:
> Others already commented on the lintian warning thing, however looking
> at your package it doesn't qualify for main; as long as it downloads
> some stuff it qualifies at most contrib, your changelog doesn't actually
> describe your ch
Thanks for all the prompt replies!
Quoting Gergely Nagy :
Out of curiosity, why the need to download the lib? Couldn't it be
included in the "source" someway?
That would be a preferred solution, but regrettably not an option. The
background is that the Danish government has mandated the us
Hi!
Am 24.11.2011 12:51, schrieb Ole Wolf:
> I'm getting some lintian warnings on one of my packages (at
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/nemid):
]..]
> The reason is quite evident: the nemid package doesn't include a
> library; instead, the postinst and postrm scri
Ole Wolf writes:
> I'm getting some lintian warnings on one of my packages (at
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/nemid):
>
> W: nemid: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
> W: nemid: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
Lintian overrides are what you seek. Since yo
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:51:43 +0100, Ole Wolf wrote:
I'm getting some lintian warnings on one of my packages (at
http://mentors.debian.net/package/nemid):
W: nemid: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
W: nemid: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
The reason is quite evident: the
On 11/24/2011 12:51 PM, Ole Wolf wrote:
> I'm getting some lintian warnings on one of my packages (at
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/nemid):
>
> W: nemid: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
> W: nemid: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
>
> The reason is quite
Dear Ole,
Ole Wolf schrieb am 24.11.2011 12:51:
> I'm getting some lintian warnings on one of my packages (at
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/nemid):
>
> W: nemid: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
> W: nemid: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
>
> The re
I'm getting some lintian warnings on one of my packages (at
http://mentors.debian.net/package/nemid):
W: nemid: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
W: nemid: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
The reason is quite evident: the nemid package doesn't include a library;
in
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Ole Wolf wrote:
> I'm sure I got the impression from some web page that provided a howto on
> building a package. I don't recall which one, unfortunately.
Ok.
> Nevertheless, the reason I relied on that web page was that I find it
> difficult to follow manuals su
Quoting Paul Wise :
Ah, my bad. I thought lintian should only be applied to the .deb files.
It might be interesting to find out where you got that impression
from, so that we can prevent other people from getting the same
impression in the future.
I'm sure I got the impression from
Hi,
> I've noticed that the lintian check on my mentors uploads are a bit more
> strict than the lintian checks on my PC; for example, lintian on mentors
> catches version numbering intended for debian native packages. I want to
> eliminate such warnings and errors before I upload rather than d
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Ole Wolf wrote:
> Ah, my bad. I thought lintian should only be applied to the .deb files.
It might be interesting to find out where you got that impression
from, so that we can prevent other people from getting the same
impression in the future.
--
bye,
pabs
ht
Quoting Niels Thykier :
How do you use lintian?
lintian pkg_ver_arch.deb
lintian src_ver.dsc
lintian src_ver_arch.changes
Ah, my bad. I thought lintian should only be applied to the .deb files.
--
OLE WOLF[1]
Rødhættevej 4 * 9400 Nørresundby
Telefon: 9632-0108 * Mobil: 2467-5526 * S
On 2011-11-10 10:59, Ole Wolf wrote:
> I've noticed that the lintian check on my mentors uploads are a bit more
> strict than the lintian checks on my PC; for example, lintian on mentors
> catches version numbering intended for debian native packages. I want to
> eliminate such warnings and errors
I've noticed that the lintian check on my mentors uploads are a bit more
strict than the lintian checks on my PC; for example, lintian on mentors
catches version numbering intended for debian native packages. I want to
eliminate such warnings and errors before I upload rather than discovering
them
David Kalnischkies writes:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 00:58, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> You can't use disappearing packages with Policy-compliant packages so
>> far as I can tell, since it would require both packages provide the
>> same /usr/share/doc directory and changelog file, which is a Policy
>
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:51:11 +0100
Tony Houghton wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:41:33 +0200
> David Kalnischkies wrote:
[Snip]
> I'd rather keep the name "roxterm" for the GTK3 version if that's OK.
> I don't really want the main package to be named after a library
> dependency and have to re
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 00:58, Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Kalnischkies writes:
>
>> Sidenote: I am not sure why the usage of 'disappearing packages' was
>> removed from the wiki as dpkg and APT support them in squeeze - at least
>> in my eyes it looked like the holy grail to prevent maintainers
David Kalnischkies writes:
> Sidenote: I am not sure why the usage of 'disappearing packages' was
> removed from the wiki as dpkg and APT support them in squeeze - at least
> in my eyes it looked like the holy grail to prevent maintainers from
> using all these half-working tricks in battle again
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:41:33 +0200
David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 01:39, Tony Houghton wrote:
> > package too, eg to roxterm-gtk3. In the latter case would adding
> > "Replaces: roxterm" cause it to automatically replace roxterm at
> > apt-get upgrade (or only dist-upgrade?)
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 01:39, Tony Houghton wrote:
> package too, eg to roxterm-gtk3. In the latter case would adding
> "Replaces: roxterm" cause it to automatically replace roxterm at apt-get
> upgrade (or only dist-upgrade?) or would I have to make a meta-package?
No. 'Replaces: A' is just a h
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:30:55 +0300
"Andrew O. Shadoura" wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:19:44 +0100
> Tony Houghton wrote:
>
> > roxterm-legacy: binaries compiled and linked with GTK2
> > roxterm: binaries compiled and linked with GTK3
> > roxterm-common: All the other files
>
> An off-topic q
depend on
> roxterm-common.
> I've got 3 lintian warnings:
> W: roxterm-legacy: menu-icon-missing usr/share/pixmaps/roxterm.xpm
> W: roxterm: menu-icon-missing usr/share/pixmaps/roxterm.xpm
> W: roxterm-common: desktop-command-not-in-package
> usr/share/applications/roxt
Hello,
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:19:44 +0100
Tony Houghton wrote:
> roxterm-legacy: binaries compiled and linked with GTK2
> roxterm: binaries compiled and linked with GTK3
> roxterm-common: All the other files
An off-topic question: why've you chosen this naming scheme? Why
'legacy'? In particula
t with each other and both depend on
> roxterm-common.
>
> I've got 3 lintian warnings:
>
> W: roxterm-legacy: menu-icon-missing usr/share/pixmaps/roxterm.xpm
> W: roxterm: menu-icon-missing usr/share/pixmaps/roxterm.xpm
Newer versions of Lintian should have enough informat
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Tony Houghton wrote:
> W: roxterm-legacy: menu-icon-missing usr/share/pixmaps/roxterm.xpm
> W: roxterm: menu-icon-missing usr/share/pixmaps/roxterm.xpm
> W: roxterm-common: desktop-command-not-in-package
> usr/share/applications/roxterm.desktop roxterm
>
> Should
I've split roxterm in to three packages:
roxterm-legacy: binaries compiled and linked with GTK2
roxterm: binaries compiled and linked with GTK3
roxterm-common: All the other files
roxterm-legacy and roxterm Conflict with each other and both depend on
roxterm-common.
I've got 3 lintia
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 07:46:58AM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2006-01-21 13:44:28, schrieb Russ Allbery:
>
> > The error message isn't about its presence in the source package but
> > rather its presence in the generated binary package. In general, in
> > Debian, you should never install
Am 2006-01-21 13:44:28, schrieb Russ Allbery:
> The error message isn't about its presence in the source package but
> rather its presence in the generated binary package. In general, in
> Debian, you should never install additional copies of the GPL, the LGPL,
> or other common licenses; instead
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 13:15 -0800, Cameron Dale wrote:
> W: torrentflux: extra-license-file var/www/torrentflux/adodb/license.txt
Other people have pointed out the solution to this, however, it
indicates to me that torrentflux includes a copy of adodb. Please don't
install that copy, unless the t
On 1/21/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first four you're probably going to have to just live with unless
> upstream repackages their source better. (The first two aren't even
> really problems in my opinion; the I: level of lintian output is just
> informational and isn't someth
On 1/21/06, Stan Vasilyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just remove var/www/torrentflux/adodb/license.txt after the installation. You
> definitely want to keep this file in the source package. You can then add a
> reference to LGPL in debian/copyright like this:
>
> On Debian systems, the complete t
Cameron Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to create a new package for Debian, and I have some Lintian
> warnings that I'm not sure how to deal with. I know I could fix all of
> them by removing some files from the upstream source, but I'm not sure
>
Am Samstag, den 21.01.2006, 13:15 -0800 schrieb Cameron Dale:
> I'm trying to create a new package for Debian, and I have some Lintian
> warnings that I'm not sure how to deal with. [..]
>
> W: torrentflux: extra-license-file var/www/torrentflux/adodb/license.txt
>
>
On Saturday 21 January 2006 01:15 pm, Cameron Dale wrote:
>
> The first 4 are easily fixed by removing the files. The last one is a
> little more problematic, but I asked on debian-legal, and as the
> license file is for the LGPL, then the package can redistribute it
> under the GPL, and I think th
I'm trying to create a new package for Debian, and I have some Lintian
warnings that I'm not sure how to deal with. I know I could fix all of
them by removing some files from the upstream source, but I'm not sure
if this is justified. I read the "Best Packaging Pract
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:55:18PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:09:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 01:45:27AM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > > > There are about 1
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:55:18PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:09:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 01:45:27AM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > > > There are about 1
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:55:18PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:09:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 01:45:27AM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
>
> > > There are about 10 of these png files that shouldn't be there. Upstream
> > > knows about t
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:55:18PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:09:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 01:45:27AM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
>
> > > There are about 10 of these png files that shouldn't be there. Upstream
> > > knows about t
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:09:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 01:45:27AM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> > There are about 10 of these png files that shouldn't be there. Upstream
> > knows about this and will eventually get round to it. Can the package
> > still be acc
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 01:45:27AM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> I am working on packaging schooltool/bell (ITP#263088) for debian at the
> request of upstream (RFS coming in a few days).
>
> Basically I have 2 questions about some Lintian warnings:
> W: schoolbell: image-
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:09:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 01:45:27AM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> > There are about 10 of these png files that shouldn't be there. Upstream
> > knows about this and will eventually get round to it. Can the package
> > still be acc
I am working on packaging schooltool/bell (ITP#263088) for debian at the
request of upstream (RFS coming in a few days).
Basically I have 2 questions about some Lintian warnings:
W: schoolbell: image-file-in-usr-lib
usr/lib/schoolbell/schooltool/browser/www/user2.png
There are about 10 of these
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 01:45:27AM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> I am working on packaging schooltool/bell (ITP#263088) for debian at the
> request of upstream (RFS coming in a few days).
>
> Basically I have 2 questions about some Lintian warnings:
> W: schoolbell: image-
I am working on packaging schooltool/bell (ITP#263088) for debian at the
request of upstream (RFS coming in a few days).
Basically I have 2 questions about some Lintian warnings:
W: schoolbell: image-file-in-usr-lib
usr/lib/schoolbell/schooltool/browser/www/user2.png
There are about 10 of these
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
> On Jan 9, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:05:42AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > Mmmm, the man page about dh_installman is quite obscure...
> > > Ok, you should write something l
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
> On Jan 9, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:05:42AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > Mmmm, the man page about dh_installman is quite obscure...
> > > Ok, you should write something
On Jan 9, Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:45:23AM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
> > On Jan 9, Robert Bihlmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > > 3) "non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlin
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:45:23AM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
> On Jan 9, Robert Bihlmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > 3) "non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink /usr/lib/libMSGUI.so.0.0.0
> > > > /usr/lib/libMSGUI.so" (warning) This p
On Jan 9, Robert Bihlmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > 3) "non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink /usr/lib/libMSGUI.so.0.0.0
> > > /usr/lib/libMSGUI.so" (warning) This package is an interpreter, and the
> > > shared
> > > libraries are for
On Jan 9, Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:45:23AM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
> > On Jan 9, Robert Bihlmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > > 3) "non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symli
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 3) "non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink /usr/lib/libMSGUI.so.0.0.0
> > /usr/lib/libMSGUI.so" (warning) This package is an interpreter, and the
> > shared
> > libraries are for running that, NOT to be linked against, so I think this is
> > benign and
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:45:23AM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
> On Jan 9, Robert Bihlmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > 3) "non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink /usr/lib/libMSGUI.so.0.0.0
> > > > /usr/lib/libMSGUI.so" (warning) This
On Jan 9, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:05:42AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:40:33AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > dh_installman and dh_installmanpages work differently. Check their
> > > manuals. If you
On Jan 9, Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Mmmm, the man page about dh_installman is quite obscure...
> Ok, you should write something like
>
> debian/a+.1
> debian/aplus-fsf.1
>
> within debian/manpages or debian/a+.manpages
That did it. Thanks!
--
Neil L. Roeth
[
On Jan 9, Robert Bihlmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > 3) "non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink /usr/lib/libMSGUI.so.0.0.0
> > > /usr/lib/libMSGUI.so" (warning) This package is an interpreter, and the
> > > shared
> > > libraries are for
On Jan 9, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:05:42AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:40:33AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > dh_installman and dh_installmanpages work differently. Check their
> > > manuals. If yo
On Jan 9, Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Mmmm, the man page about dh_installman is quite obscure...
> Ok, you should write something like
>
> debian/a+.1
> debian/aplus-fsf.1
>
> within debian/manpages or debian/a+.manpages
That did it. Thanks!
--
Neil L. Roeth
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 10:57:30PM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
> I made packages for A+ and ran lintian on them. One of them spits out a few
> warnings and one error that I'd like to resolve, but I do not know how. I
> hope someone can help, since when I finish this I'll have built my first
> Deb
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 04:26:16AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:05:42AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:40:33AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > dh_installman and dh_installmanpages work differently. Check their
> > > manuals.
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:05:42AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:40:33AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > dh_installman and dh_installmanpages work differently. Check their
> > manuals. If you tried dh_installmanpages here you got all ok, I think.
> > Or
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 10:57:30PM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote:
> I made packages for A+ and ran lintian on them. One of them spits out a few
> warnings and one error that I'd like to resolve, but I do not know how. I
> hope someone can help, since when I finish this I'll have built my first
> De
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 10:40:33AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> > 2) "binary-without-manpage a+" (error) I call dh_installman in debian/rules,
> > but it appears to have no effect. I tried building the package with a file
> > called debian/aplus-fsf.1 (the same name as the package) an
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
