Re: One source, two binary packages

1998-04-17 Thread Karl M. Hegbloom
> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Santiago> Currently, you force to have those tools installed to Santiago> everybody who wants to recompile the package. Why is it a problem to require that `autoconf' and `automake' be installed? Once you install the compiler

Re: Lib packaging question

1998-04-17 Thread Karl M. Hegbloom
> "shaleh" == shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: shaleh> When creating lib packages, which package should link shaleh> libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so?? Should the -dev or the lib shaleh> itself?? The lib itself. libfoo.so.1.2.3 libfoo.so -> libfoo.so.1.2.3 libfoo.so.1 -> libfoo

Re: closing old bugs

1998-04-17 Thread Karl M. Hegbloom
> "Damjan" == Damjan Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Damjan> Can someone tell me what I must do to close old bugs, Damjan> after uploading new upstream version. I am a new Damjan> maintainer of that package. There's a WWW page up, if you follow the link to the bug tracking s

Re: One source, two binary packages

1998-04-17 Thread storm
On 16 Apr 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote: > > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Santiago> Currently, you force to have those tools installed to > Santiago> everybody who wants to recompile the package. > > Why is it a problem to require that `autoconf' and `a

Config file format [may] change

1998-04-17 Thread Turbo Fredriksson
One of the config files for my package (I'm also the author of this) may change... I'm planing on a rewrite/ cleanup... How to I 'force' a user to install the new one, when they upgrade? I'm thinking about dpkg's 'Okay to install new version (N is usually ok)' or what ever it exactly say... -- -

Re: build bug or change?

1998-04-17 Thread Santiago Vila
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Michael Borella wrote: > This worked. Great. But isn't this an ugly fix? Perhaps > there is a problem with debstd. If you think it is a problem with debstd, please investigate and submit a bug against debmake. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE--

Re: Config file format [may] change

1998-04-17 Thread James LewisMoss
> On 17 Apr 1998 07:55:24 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Turbo> One of the config files for my package (I'm also the author of Turbo> this) may change... I'm planing on a rewrite/ cleanup... Turbo> How to I 'force' a user to install the new one, when they Turbo> upgrad

Re: Lib packaging question

1998-04-17 Thread Karl M. Hegbloom
> "Karl" == Karl M Hegbloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "shaleh" == shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: shaleh> When creating lib packages, which package should link shaleh> libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so?? Should the -dev or the lib shaleh> itself?? Karl> postrm: ldconfig

Re: Lib packaging question

1998-04-17 Thread Adam P. Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes: > > "shaleh" == shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > shaleh> When creating lib packages, which package should link > shaleh> libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so?? Should the -dev or the lib > shaleh> itself?? > > The lib itself. Nope. Pleas

Re: Lib packaging question

1998-04-17 Thread James Troup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes: > > postinst: > > ldconfig > > Nope. Bzzt, wrong answer, you lose, humans die. RTFM (the latest versions, still in Incoming). The packaging manual got this wrong for a long time, and the issue wasn't helped by people spreading FUD about it. -- J