Your message dated Mon, 11 Aug 2014 02:18:49 +0200
with message-id <53e80be9.4040...@danielstender.com>
and subject line RFS: python-djvulibre/0.3.9-2 -- Python support for the DjVu
image container format
has caused the Debian Bug report #757675,
regarding RFS: python-djvulibre/0.3.9-2 --
❦ 10 août 2014 16:10 +0200, Daniel Stender :
>> Also, you may want to remove debian/patches when it is empty.
>
> Removed.
OK, uploaded.
--
Debian package sponsoring guidelines:
http://vincent.bernat.im/en/debian-package-sponsoring.html
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi Vincent,
much thanks for the review.
On 10.08.2014 14:54, Vincent Bernat wrote:
Not much to say. Are you sure that upstream-signing-key.pgp is at the
right location? The manual page for uscan still says
debian/upstream/signing-key.pgp. When I try, I get:
Newest version on remote site is 0.3
❦ 10 août 2014 12:59 +0200, Daniel Stender :
> I'm looking for a sponsor for my new package of python-djvulibre, which
> now also builds Python3 packages. It appears to be Lintian clean.
Hi Daniel!
Not much to say. Are you sure that upstream-signing-key.pgp is at the
right location? The manual
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Hello,
I'm looking for a sponsor for my new package of python-djvulibre, which
now also builds Python3 packages. It appears to be Lintian clean.
For changes, please cf.
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/python-modules-commits/2014-August/029
Hi Daniel (2010.11.02_16:58:56_+0200)
> please excuse if this one would have belonged to a Python mailing list
> but maybe somebody here could help me out (rookie question?):
Yeah, there is a debian-python mailing list (and IRC channel) for the
Python teams which are good places to get Python-pack
Hi guys,
please excuse if this one would have belonged to a Python mailing list but
maybe somebody here could
help me out (rookie question?):
packing a Python application here by default
Debhelper(8)/Python-Support(1.0.10) treat all the
modules as being public and so put them into /usr/share
> Od: Paul Wise
-
> Please read the output of lintian-info --tags
> executable-not-elf-or-script and act accordingly.
I'll try thank you
regards
mira
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian
Please read the output of lintian-info --tags
executable-not-elf-or-script and act accordingly.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Hello mentors,
just preparing package which need python-support.
I had these warning in lintian before applying python-support:
W: zynjacku: executable-not-elf-or-script
./usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/zynworld/__init__.py
W: zynjacku: executable-not-elf-or-script
./usr/lib
Hi all,
I was packaging wixi [0] but, I have some troubles:
It doesn't find its images,icons when it is running (appears a message).
I selected python-support but according to [1] modules should install
in /usr/share/python-support/package,
but [2] said: /usr/lib/pymodules/python$*
James Westby wrote:
> [Apologies for replying to my own message again, but Adam keeps
> mentioning things in other channels to which I cannot respond]
>
> On (09/09/06 19:57), James Westby wrote:
>
>> After discussion on IRC it seems that a compile flag is wanted to do
>> this.
>>
>>
>
> O
[Apologies for replying to my own message again, but Adam keeps
mentioning things in other channels to which I cannot respond]
On (09/09/06 19:57), James Westby wrote:
> After discussion on IRC it seems that a compile flag is wanted to do
> this.
>
Ok, in #361400 you say you are not happy with
On (09/09/06 13:19), James Westby wrote:
> On (09/09/06 05:44), Adam Cecile wrote:
> > A friend told me the file must be python's version independent, what do you
> > think about it ?
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
>
After discussion on IRC it seems that a compile flag is
, I don't understand what you mean.
If you mean the .so then I don't see how this can be correct, it has to
be built for a certain version of python.
If you mean the .py files then you are probably correct, they should
only need to be built for one version. This seems to be a limitatio
;
>> > I'm working on Museek+ packaging and I have a problem.
>> > There is an arch dependent file in python-museekd (mucipher.so) and it
>> > should be built for python2.4 and 2.3.
>> >
>> > But the package doesn't include a python 2.3 version of the f
e in python-museekd (mucipher.so) and it
> > should be built for python2.4 and 2.3.
> >
> > But the package doesn't include a python 2.3 version of the file and
> > dependency is set to python >=2.4...
> >
>
> See the last section of /usr/share/doc/pytho
nd 2.3.
>
> But the package doesn't include a python 2.3 version of the file and
> dependency is set to python >=2.4...
>
See the last section of /usr/share/doc/python-support/README.gz for
details of how to handle public extensions.
The difficulty is that the package build
ckage: python-museek
Version: 0.1.11-1
Section: net
Priority: optional
Architecture: i386
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6), python (<< 2.5), python-support (>=
0.3.4), python (>= 2.4)
Installed-Size: 204
Maintainer: Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Source: museek+
Des
19 matches
Mail list logo
