Hi Chad.
I did not answer to your first post for various reasons.
While I thank you for your answers, I strongly disagree
with some of your views to the point that I wondered why
it was my package that prompted you to write about "pet-packages".
Just as your advice was not only to me, please take
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:55, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> still left, but you should well know that a volunteer project needs to
> distribute the dull jobs amongst those that are working for the main cause.
That is a fair point. However you may have noticed that there are
difficulties in becoming a ne
The subject line says it all. I have a condition where apt-get refuses to
upgrade. How can I figure out exactly what apt-get does not like:
Here follows my example run. The reason I use a versioned install is just
because otherwise apt-get just refuses to consider the upgrade. This is a
problem
Hi, Thomas.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:55:32AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Taking your answer literally, the conclusion is that you think that debian
> has enough package maintainers and the others should bother about the crums
> that fall from the table that existing DDs are not interested in
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 04:30:32PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> They are lintian clean, but linda reports an odd error.
Let me guess,
netsnipe@espresso:/usr/src/debian-devel/active% linda -i
libopenexr0_1.0.4-1_i386.deb
X: libopenexr0; Package name doesn't contain one of the SONAMEs.
This packa
>[...] Don't expect anyone to
join
> debian just to do the odd jobs and wanting to be "a slave to Debian". And
> don't think that telling people "the contribution you want to offer is not
> needed, please do the stuff we don't like" is a successful way
> Unfortunately, it's hard to tell who is serious about Debian and who is,
> for instance, likely to do work for a month, decide RedHat is what they
> want to run at home, and never be seen again.
>
> A long NM process used to weed out people joining Debian on a whim
> (good), but it also weede
This one time, at band camp, deFreese, Barry said:
> Hey I've offer to be a "slave" to Debian but no one seems to be taking
> me seriously. I'll write man pages, clean up code, test, whatever, I
> just need some guidance in the right direction. The way I look at it,
> the more exposure I get, the
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:55, deFreese, Barry wrote:
> Hey I've offer to be a "slave" to Debian but no one seems to be taking me
> seriously. I'll write man pages, clean up code, test, whatever, I just
One thing you could do is write a script that searches for a man page for
every binary on your sy
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:03:11PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> That's at least a start. I'm sure there must be a way to get a list of
> bugs with a specific tag; e.g 'help' or 'unreproducable' that need some
> help to fix, but I can't find it right now. Colin, is that possible?
Not for tags in
Hi Russell!
You wrote:
> One thing you could do is write a script that searches for a man page for
> every binary on your system. /usr/bin and /bin binaries deserve man pages in
> section 1, /usr/sbin and /sbin binaries deserve man pages in section 8. If
> you write a Perl script to search f
Bas,
I've looked at this page and had a brief discussion with Bastian on it. I'm
somewhat of a noob to Linux and really green on the development side so my
question was. How do I know if any of these packages listed on this page
are even still in use? Many of the bug reports for a lot of these
Hi all.
A package of mine, mozart, uses some rather informal shell scripts. The
idea is to provide a wrapper around one of their tools, ozengine -- the
shell script passes its arguments and a kind of initialisation code to
ozengine. To illustrate this, the beginning of one script looks like
Hi!
I am interested in becoming a Debian developer and have already
produced a number of Debian packages, but they fall in the "pet
packages" category referred to in another thread on this list. The
most recent ones are mpf70-source and mpf70-utils, respectively the
source for a kernel module (bui
On Die, 2003-01-28 at 17:35, Andrew Lau wrote:
> * libopenexr0-dev should Depends: libopenexr0 (= ${Source-Version}),
> xlibmesa-gl-dev, xlibmesa-glu-dev. "grep #include
> /usr/include/OpenEXR/*" to see why.
You probably mean libgl-dev and libglu-dev instead of xlibmesa-gl-dev
and xlibmesa-gl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marco,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:39:15PM +0100, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
> The scripts seem to work fine in spite of their syntax
> errors, but I am not sure how to convince lintian about that.
Read file:///usr/share/doc/lintian/lintian.html/ch2.html#s2
Jeremy Lainé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the meantime, I think I've found something to sink my teeth in,
> namely packaging buildd. I realise it's a big bugger, but as packaging
> it seems to have been on the TODO list for a while I suppose any work
> I put into it is that much done..
You mi
Hi There,
* http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=174700
A few really silly questions:
1) Is that package still orphaned?
- I'd say so because upstream has gone to version 0.2.X
2) I want to adopt it
- upstream author is happy
- haven't heard from the maintainer Peter Crystal <[E
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 13:51, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> Marco,
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:39:15PM +0100, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
> > The scripts seem to work fine in spite of their syntax
> > errors, but I am not sure how to convince lintian about that.
>
> Read file:///usr/share/doc/lintia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David,
> 1) Is that package still orphaned?
> - I'd say so because upstream has gone to version 0.2.X
No new information has been sent to the bug since the original report,
and the title still says "O:", so I'd say it is orphaned.
> ..but I can't wo
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:48:19PM -0500, Chad Miller wrote:
> Let me give a personal example: I wrote a program that uses the XMLRPC
> features of Advogato to edit one's diary there. People loved it. There
> are about two dozen people who regularly use it. I made it into a
> package, and put i
Hi Chad.
I did not answer to your first post for various reasons.
While I thank you for your answers, I strongly disagree
with some of your views to the point that I wondered why
it was my package that prompted you to write about "pet-packages".
Just as your advice was not only to me, please take
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:55, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> still left, but you should well know that a volunteer project needs to
> distribute the dull jobs amongst those that are working for the main cause.
That is a fair point. However you may have noticed that there are
difficulties in becoming a ne
The subject line says it all. I have a condition where apt-get refuses to
upgrade. How can I figure out exactly what apt-get does not like:
Here follows my example run. The reason I use a versioned install is just
because otherwise apt-get just refuses to consider the upgrade. This is a
problem
Hi, Thomas.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:55:32AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Taking your answer literally, the conclusion is that you think that debian
> has enough package maintainers and the others should bother about the crums
> that fall from the table that existing DDs are not interested in
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 04:30:32PM +0100, Jesus Climent wrote:
> They are lintian clean, but linda reports an odd error.
Let me guess,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/debian-devel/active% linda -i
libopenexr0_1.0.4-1_i386.deb
X: libopenexr0; Package name doesn't contain one of the SONAMEs.
This packa
>[...] Don't expect anyone to
join
> debian just to do the odd jobs and wanting to be "a slave to Debian". And
> don't think that telling people "the contribution you want to offer is not
> needed, please do the stuff we don't like" is a successful way
> Unfortunately, it's hard to tell who is serious about Debian and who is,
> for instance, likely to do work for a month, decide RedHat is what they
> want to run at home, and never be seen again.
>
> A long NM process used to weed out people joining Debian on a whim
> (good), but it also weede
This one time, at band camp, deFreese, Barry said:
> Hey I've offer to be a "slave" to Debian but no one seems to be taking
> me seriously. I'll write man pages, clean up code, test, whatever, I
> just need some guidance in the right direction. The way I look at it,
> the more exposure I get, the
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:55, deFreese, Barry wrote:
> Hey I've offer to be a "slave" to Debian but no one seems to be taking me
> seriously. I'll write man pages, clean up code, test, whatever, I just
One thing you could do is write a script that searches for a man page for
every binary on your sy
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:03:11PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> That's at least a start. I'm sure there must be a way to get a list of
> bugs with a specific tag; e.g 'help' or 'unreproducable' that need some
> help to fix, but I can't find it right now. Colin, is that possible?
Not for tags in
Hi Russell!
You wrote:
> One thing you could do is write a script that searches for a man page for
> every binary on your system. /usr/bin and /bin binaries deserve man pages in
> section 1, /usr/sbin and /sbin binaries deserve man pages in section 8. If
> you write a Perl script to search f
Bas,
I've looked at this page and had a brief discussion with Bastian on it. I'm
somewhat of a noob to Linux and really green on the development side so my
question was. How do I know if any of these packages listed on this page
are even still in use? Many of the bug reports for a lot of these
Hi all.
A package of mine, mozart, uses some rather informal shell scripts. The
idea is to provide a wrapper around one of their tools, ozengine -- the
shell script passes its arguments and a kind of initialisation code to
ozengine. To illustrate this, the beginning of one script looks like
Hi!
I am interested in becoming a Debian developer and have already
produced a number of Debian packages, but they fall in the "pet
packages" category referred to in another thread on this list. The
most recent ones are mpf70-source and mpf70-utils, respectively the
source for a kernel module (bui
On Die, 2003-01-28 at 17:35, Andrew Lau wrote:
> * libopenexr0-dev should Depends: libopenexr0 (= ${Source-Version}),
> xlibmesa-gl-dev, xlibmesa-glu-dev. "grep #include
> /usr/include/OpenEXR/*" to see why.
You probably mean libgl-dev and libglu-dev instead of xlibmesa-gl-dev
and xlibmesa-gl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marco,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:39:15PM +0100, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
> The scripts seem to work fine in spite of their syntax
> errors, but I am not sure how to convince lintian about that.
Read file:///usr/share/doc/lintian/lintian.html/ch2.html#s2
Jeremy Lainé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the meantime, I think I've found something to sink my teeth in,
> namely packaging buildd. I realise it's a big bugger, but as packaging
> it seems to have been on the TODO list for a while I suppose any work
> I put into it is that much done..
You mi
Hi There,
* http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=174700
A few really silly questions:
1) Is that package still orphaned?
- I'd say so because upstream has gone to version 0.2.X
2) I want to adopt it
- upstream author is happy
- haven't heard from the maintainer Peter Crystal <[E
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 13:51, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> Marco,
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:39:15PM +0100, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
> > The scripts seem to work fine in spite of their syntax
> > errors, but I am not sure how to convince lintian about that.
>
> Read file:///usr/share/doc/lintia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David,
> 1) Is that package still orphaned?
> - I'd say so because upstream has gone to version 0.2.X
No new information has been sent to the bug since the original report,
and the title still says "O:", so I'd say it is orphaned.
> ..but I can't wo
41 matches
Mail list logo
