On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Ivo Timmermans wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > or build dependencies on debhelper (>>3.0)
> >
> > Yes, but since i want ot build the package on both potato and unstable, this
> > will not help.
>
> Why exactly? It's not a crime to create two separate p
Hello,
I'm not sure if I'm welcome her, because I'm not maintaining a
official debian-package but trying to make .deb's out of my tools.
I have a tool that needs a directory /var/log/ppplog. It is contained
in data.tar.gz, but tar does not set the required right on the
directory (right?). So I se
* M G Berberich
| I'm not sure if I'm welcome her, because I'm not maintaining a
| official debian-package but trying to make .deb's out of my tools.
No problem. We are including here. :)
| I have a tool that needs a directory /var/log/ppplog. It is contained
| in data.tar.gz, but tar does not
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 07:44:34AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Why exactly? It's not a crime to create two separate packages; one
> > for stable and one for unstable. You can change the build
> > dependencies to match the distribution.
>
> Well, the idea is to have only one package for both, t
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:50:25AM +0200, M G Berberich wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm not sure if I'm welcome her, because I'm not maintaining a
> official debian-package but trying to make .deb's out of my tools.
>
> I have a tool that needs a directory /var/log/ppplog. It is contained
> in data.tar.g
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:17:06PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 07:44:34AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > Why exactly? It's not a crime to create two separate packages; one
> > > for stable and one for unstable. You can change the build
> > > dependencies to match the di
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 02:31:23PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > So it'll potentially create different binaries with the same version
> > number on the different platforms. Hmm. Why not just go with the
> > potato version? It should work fine on unstable.
>
> I don't package for potato, only fo
Hello,
Am Mittwoch, den 04. April 2001 13:19:09 schrieb Julian Gilbey:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:50:25AM +0200, M G Berberich wrote:
> > I have a tool that needs a directory /var/log/ppplog. It is contained
> > in data.tar.gz, but tar does not set the required right on the
> > directory (right
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:28:47PM +0200, M G Berberich wrote:
> fakeroot. And I have read various documentation.
Great.
> > > The package also puts a executable in /etc/ppp/ip-down.d. Building the
> > > binary leads to a complain about an executable in unusual place (or
> > > so). Can I prevent
Hi,
I'm the maintainer of plucker, a python module for web scooping for
the PalmOS. The package contains pyton files, .py, .pyc and .pyo, but
no other executables, but for the moment I have a setup that produces
one deb for each arch. The python tutorial says .pyc are arch
independent, but when
Questions which arise for me in creating an unofficial Debian
package for a Python based script:
- the upstream Python script is called 'script.py'. Should I keep
the .py extension or drop it?
- should this script be installed in /usr/bin like any other
regular program?
- the upstream tarba
On 04-Apr-2001 Michael Wiedmann wrote:
> Questions which arise for me in creating an unofficial Debian
> package for a Python based script:
>
> - the upstream Python script is called 'script.py'. Should I keep
> the .py extension or drop it?
>
Either is fine.
> - should this script be instal
Mikael,
> I think I ought to produce an architecture:any package instead, am I
> right? Anyone want to confirm, or test it?
Use 'all' if you
- have only .py files
- use only platform independent Python modules
- have no C extension modules
Use 'any' if you
- use only platform independent Python
Mikael Hedin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The python tutorial says .pyc are arch independent, but when I
> compared the .pyc from the i386 and powerpc debs, there were some
> small differences. E.g. there is a string with the arch, and then a
> few differing bits in the end and beginning. Are the
As some of you told me, I try to use uupdate with new upstream release.
I know that uupdate try to apply the diff.gz patches to the new upstream
versione and when I can't do it cleanly creates a .rej file.
I can't understand what the .rej files really are.
It seems to me that the corrisponding fil
Rob Tillotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If your package contains only Python code, you can then safely make it
> Architecture: any.
Er, I meant "all". Sorry. :)
--Rob
--
Rob Tillotson N9MTB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, peter karlsson wrote:
> Steve M. Robbins:
>
> > The undocumented page provides no more information than "No manual
> > entry for foo" (but the former is much longer to read). What is the
> > point?
>
> Personally, I reason that if I get "No manual entry", it is a program
> th
Hello,
I'm not sure if I'm welcome her, because I'm not maintaining a
official debian-package but trying to make .deb's out of my tools.
I have a tool that needs a directory /var/log/ppplog. It is contained
in data.tar.gz, but tar does not set the required right on the
directory (right?). So I s
* M G Berberich
| I'm not sure if I'm welcome her, because I'm not maintaining a
| official debian-package but trying to make .deb's out of my tools.
No problem. We are including here. :)
| I have a tool that needs a directory /var/log/ppplog. It is contained
| in data.tar.gz, but tar does no
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 07:44:34AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Why exactly? It's not a crime to create two separate packages; one
> > for stable and one for unstable. You can change the build
> > dependencies to match the distribution.
>
> Well, the idea is to have only one package for both,
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:50:25AM +0200, M G Berberich wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm not sure if I'm welcome her, because I'm not maintaining a
> official debian-package but trying to make .deb's out of my tools.
>
> I have a tool that needs a directory /var/log/ppplog. It is contained
> in data.tar.
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:17:06PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 07:44:34AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > Why exactly? It's not a crime to create two separate packages; one
> > > for stable and one for unstable. You can change the build
> > > dependencies to match the d
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 02:31:23PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > So it'll potentially create different binaries with the same version
> > number on the different platforms. Hmm. Why not just go with the
> > potato version? It should work fine on unstable.
>
> I don't package for potato, only f
Hello,
Am Mittwoch, den 04. April 2001 13:19:09 schrieb Julian Gilbey:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:50:25AM +0200, M G Berberich wrote:
> > I have a tool that needs a directory /var/log/ppplog. It is contained
> > in data.tar.gz, but tar does not set the required right on the
> > directory (righ
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:28:47PM +0200, M G Berberich wrote:
> fakeroot. And I have read various documentation.
Great.
> > > The package also puts a executable in /etc/ppp/ip-down.d. Building the
> > > binary leads to a complain about an executable in unusual place (or
> > > so). Can I prevent
Hi,
I'm the maintainer of plucker, a python module for web scooping for
the PalmOS. The package contains pyton files, .py, .pyc and .pyo, but
no other executables, but for the moment I have a setup that produces
one deb for each arch. The python tutorial says .pyc are arch
independent, but when
Questions which arise for me in creating an unofficial Debian
package for a Python based script:
- the upstream Python script is called 'script.py'. Should I keep
the .py extension or drop it?
- should this script be installed in /usr/bin like any other
regular program?
- the upstream tarb
On 04-Apr-2001 Michael Wiedmann wrote:
> Questions which arise for me in creating an unofficial Debian
> package for a Python based script:
>
> - the upstream Python script is called 'script.py'. Should I keep
> the .py extension or drop it?
>
Either is fine.
> - should this script be insta
Mikael,
> I think I ought to produce an architecture:any package instead, am I
> right? Anyone want to confirm, or test it?
Use 'all' if you
- have only .py files
- use only platform independent Python modules
- have no C extension modules
Use 'any' if you
- use only platform independent Python
Mikael Hedin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The python tutorial says .pyc are arch independent, but when I
> compared the .pyc from the i386 and powerpc debs, there were some
> small differences. E.g. there is a string with the arch, and then a
> few differing bits in the end and beginning. Are th
As some of you told me, I try to use uupdate with new upstream release.
I know that uupdate try to apply the diff.gz patches to the new upstream
versione and when I can't do it cleanly creates a .rej file.
I can't understand what the .rej files really are.
It seems to me that the corrisponding fi
Rob Tillotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If your package contains only Python code, you can then safely make it
> Architecture: any.
Er, I meant "all". Sorry. :)
--Rob
--
Rob Tillotson N9MTB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, peter karlsson wrote:
> Steve M. Robbins:
>
> > The undocumented page provides no more information than "No manual
> > entry for foo" (but the former is much longer to read). What is the
> > point?
>
> Personally, I reason that if I get "No manual entry", it is a program
> t
33 matches
Mail list logo
