On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 11:20:19PM -0600, Stephen Langasek wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm taking on the packaging of a library that has a build-time dependency on
> the dev package from another library. Do any of the dpkg-dev or debhelper
> tools check for this line in the control file? I've poked aro
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010113 17:31]:
> > Only for very few tasks you will require to be an official Debian
> are not important, neither is login access to Debian systems.
What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms? What if I
someday end up with a package li
I'm trying to package the new upstream version of mirrormagic.
It has a changelog in the root source directory called CHANGES.
I figure I'm supposed to install this changelog by running
dh_installchangelogs CHANGES
which is what had worked previously. However, when I do this, all of a
sudden d
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 06:06:15PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> I'm trying to package the new upstream version of mirrormagic.
>
> It has a changelog in the root source directory called CHANGES.
> I figure I'm supposed to install this changelog by running
> dh_installchangelogs CHANGES
> which
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:02:57AM -0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms? What if I
> someday end up with a package like that, want to see it for myself, fix
> the problem, and send the patch upstream like a good developer?
>
> Having access to plat
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:57:41AM +, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote...
> I intend to adopt browser-history from Karl M. Hegbloom, but I'm still
> in the NM queue. Would anyone like to sponsor this package? I have an
> upload of version 2.8-2 prepared, which can be found at
> http://ww
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:34:15AM -0600, Gordon Sadler wrote:
>
> Whenever this has happened to me with local builds... I have forgotten
> to add a Debian revision to the package number inside debian/changelog.
>
> (I.E. 0.4.1 instead of 0.4.1-1)
>
LOL You're perfectly right of course! Tha
"Oliver M . Bolzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:57:41AM +, Colin Watson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
>> I intend to adopt browser-history from Karl M. Hegbloom, but I'm still
>> in the NM queue. Would anyone like to sponsor this package? I have an
>> upload of versio
On 20010114T010257-0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms?
Those are special cases, and warrant access to our non-x86 machines.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Keep the Deja Archiv
> On 20010114T010257-0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> > What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms?
>
> Those are special cases, and warrant access to our non-x86 machines.
What about those with sid (me) who want access to potato and woody machines
to test with weird breakages? (me)
Why
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:47:21PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On 20010114T010257-0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> > > What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms?
> > Those are special cases, and warrant access to our non-x86 machines.
> What about those with sid (me) who want access to
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 01:47:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I mean, is it really difficult to see how approving someone who'll
> maintain a couple of packages that'll get dropped into optional or extra
> isn't really a high priority? Is it difficult to see how someone might
> think, oh, I don'
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Stephen Langasek wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi Stephen,
> I'm taking on the packaging of a library that has a build-time dependency on
> the dev package from another library. Do any of the dpkg-dev or debhelper
> tools check for this line in the control file? I've poked around a bit
If a source package produces _only_ binary_all packages, is it
necessary to have a Build-Depends-Indep: field, or is it sufficient to
have a Build-Depends field?
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way <[EMAIL PROT
On 20010114T135051-0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> If a source package produces _only_ binary_all packages, is it
> necessary to have a Build-Depends-Indep: field, or is it sufficient to
> have a Build-Depends field?
It is never necessary to have the Build-Depends-Indep field, although
it may be
Ok... well, since no one seems too bothered by this, I guess it's not a
problem. But does anyone know if the DAM has some procedure for picking
people out of the queue, or is it all quite willy-nilly?
* Martin Michlmayr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010113 16:5
On Sunday 14 January 2001 20:32, Eric Dorland wrote:
> Ok... well, since no one seems too bothered by this, I guess it's not a
> problem. But does anyone know if the DAM has some procedure for picking
> people out of the queue, or is it all quite willy-nilly?
I would say the DAM queue is a full im
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> Stephen Langasek wrote:
> > I'm taking on the packaging of a library that has a build-time dependency on
> > the dev package from another library. Do any of the dpkg-dev or debhelper
> > tools check for this line in the control file? I've poked around a bi
** On Jan 14, Anthony Towns scribbled:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:47:21PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On 20010114T010257-0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> > > > What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms?
> > > Those are special cases, and warrant access to our non-x86 machines.
> >
Chris Ruffin wrote:
>
> electric is the package I'm really concerned about. I uploaded it to
> the old woody tree, and it was accecpted. But the package won't go
> into testing, and gives the following in update_excuses:
>
> electric 6.00-1 (new) (low) Maintainer: Chris Ruffin
> <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 06:01:32PM -0800, Rick Younie wrote:
> Chris Ruffin wrote:
>
> Did you track this down? I had a look yesterday and then
> got onto other things and didn't reply. electric depends on
> lesstif1 and there is a problem with that on m68k. I don't know
> of an easy way of trac
Hey,
What exactly is a Debian-native package? I've seen definitions from "a package
with no upstream source" to "written especially for Debian," which seem kind
of orthogonal to me. Here's my situation:
I'm in the NM queue, currently packaging tclbabel, a piece of software I have
written myse
Chris Danis writes:
> I'm in the NM queue, currently packaging tclbabel, a piece of software
> I have written myself. Because I am both upstream and possibly Debian
> maintainer, should this be such a native package?
I don't like making for such packages native. I have one package that
I'm also u
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 11:10:32AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Once important tasks are done and no other problems with new
> applicants occur they will be accepted and receive their account.
The problem with statements like this, Joey, is that you have no right
at all to make them.
if you're
Chris Danis:
> I'm in the NM queue, currently packaging tclbabel, a piece of
> software I have written myself. Because I am both upstream and
> possibly Debian maintainer, should this be such a native package?
It could be, but it does not need to. I have made the programs I write
myself native pa
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:02:57AM -0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms? What if I
> someday end up with a package like that, want to see it for myself, fix
> the problem, and send the patch upstream like a good developer?
>
> Having access to pla
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:57:41AM +, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
> I intend to adopt browser-history from Karl M. Hegbloom, but I'm still
> in the NM queue. Would anyone like to sponsor this package? I have an
> upload of version 2.8-2 prepared, which can be found at
> http://ww
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:34:15AM -0600, Gordon Sadler wrote:
>
> Whenever this has happened to me with local builds... I have forgotten
> to add a Debian revision to the package number inside debian/changelog.
>
> (I.E. 0.4.1 instead of 0.4.1-1)
>
LOL You're perfectly right of course! Th
"Oliver M . Bolzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:57:41AM +, Colin Watson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
>> I intend to adopt browser-history from Karl M. Hegbloom, but I'm still
>> in the NM queue. Would anyone like to sponsor this package? I have an
>> upload of versi
On 20010114T010257-0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms?
Those are special cases, and warrant access to our non-x86 machines.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Keep the Deja Archi
> On 20010114T010257-0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> > What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms?
>
> Those are special cases, and warrant access to our non-x86 machines.
What about those with sid (me) who want access to potato and woody machines
to test with weird breakages? (me)
Wh
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:47:21PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On 20010114T010257-0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> > > What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms?
> > Those are special cases, and warrant access to our non-x86 machines.
> What about those with sid (me) who want access t
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 01:47:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I mean, is it really difficult to see how approving someone who'll
> maintain a couple of packages that'll get dropped into optional or extra
> isn't really a high priority? Is it difficult to see how someone might
> think, oh, I don
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Stephen Langasek wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi Stephen,
> I'm taking on the packaging of a library that has a build-time dependency on
> the dev package from another library. Do any of the dpkg-dev or debhelper
> tools check for this line in the control file? I've poked around a bi
If a source package produces _only_ binary_all packages, is it
necessary to have a Build-Depends-Indep: field, or is it sufficient to
have a Build-Depends field?
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way <[EMAIL PRO
On 20010114T135051-0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> If a source package produces _only_ binary_all packages, is it
> necessary to have a Build-Depends-Indep: field, or is it sufficient to
> have a Build-Depends field?
It is never necessary to have the Build-Depends-Indep field, although
it may be
Ok... well, since no one seems too bothered by this, I guess it's not a
problem. But does anyone know if the DAM has some procedure for picking
people out of the queue, or is it all quite willy-nilly?
* Martin Michlmayr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010113 16:
On Sunday 14 January 2001 20:32, Eric Dorland wrote:
> Ok... well, since no one seems too bothered by this, I guess it's not a
> problem. But does anyone know if the DAM has some procedure for picking
> people out of the queue, or is it all quite willy-nilly?
I would say the DAM queue is a full i
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> Stephen Langasek wrote:
> > I'm taking on the packaging of a library that has a build-time dependency on
> > the dev package from another library. Do any of the dpkg-dev or debhelper
> > tools check for this line in the control file? I've poked around a b
** On Jan 14, Anthony Towns scribbled:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:47:21PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On 20010114T010257-0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> > > > What about odd programs with breakage on non-x86 platforms?
> > > Those are special cases, and warrant access to our non-x86 machines.
> >
Chris Ruffin wrote:
>
> electric is the package I'm really concerned about. I uploaded it to
> the old woody tree, and it was accecpted. But the package won't go
> into testing, and gives the following in update_excuses:
>
> electric 6.00-1 (new) (low) Maintainer: Chris Ruffin
> <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 06:01:32PM -0800, Rick Younie wrote:
> Chris Ruffin wrote:
>
> Did you track this down? I had a look yesterday and then
> got onto other things and didn't reply. electric depends on
> lesstif1 and there is a problem with that on m68k. I don't know
> of an easy way of tra
Hey,
What exactly is a Debian-native package? I've seen definitions from "a package
with no upstream source" to "written especially for Debian," which seem kind
of orthogonal to me. Here's my situation:
I'm in the NM queue, currently packaging tclbabel, a piece of software I have
written mys
Chris Danis writes:
> I'm in the NM queue, currently packaging tclbabel, a piece of software
> I have written myself. Because I am both upstream and possibly Debian
> maintainer, should this be such a native package?
I don't like making for such packages native. I have one package that
I'm also
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 11:10:32AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Once important tasks are done and no other problems with new
> applicants occur they will be accepted and receive their account.
The problem with statements like this, Joey, is that you have no right
at all to make them.
if you'r
Chris Danis:
> I'm in the NM queue, currently packaging tclbabel, a piece of
> software I have written myself. Because I am both upstream and
> possibly Debian maintainer, should this be such a native package?
It could be, but it does not need to. I have made the programs I write
myself native p
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:22:00PM -0500, Chris Danis wrote:
> I'm in the NM queue, currently packaging tclbabel, a piece of software I have
> written myself. Because I am both upstream and possibly Debian maintainer,
> should this be such a native package?
It really depends. If you make it a d
> I mean, is it really difficult to see how approving someone who'll
> maintain a couple of packages that'll get dropped into optional or extra
> isn't really a high priority? Is it difficult to see how someone might
The problem with this logic is that you don't have much chance of being
able to
Hi Marcus,
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 05:32:40PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Nothing of this is hard to understand. But if this happens, you have to pass
> on the general staff. If you don't care about new maintainers, because you
> don't think there is much value in them, leave them alone. But
49 matches
Mail list logo
