Bengt Thuree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That depends on the complexity of the installation. In most cases,
>> it is
>> highly advisable to have a separate Makefile that does the compilation
>> and installation, and in debian/rules you only call it with appropriate
>> targets and arguments.
> ok
Hi, I'm interested in adoptiong python-gd but I'm not (yet) a DD.
I'm started my application process few weeks ago and my first official
package (phpldapadmin) is already in unstable.
I'm looking for someone interested in sponsoring me to adopt python-gd.
I've packaged python-gd adding supports a
I just uploaded potracegui_0.5.1-2 to mentors.debian.net hopefully
correcting all outstanding issues, appreciating any further comments.
potracegui (0.5.1-2) unstable; urgency=low
* adjusting the copyright file and the package description.
* fixed Build-Depends.
* Closes: #253205: ITP: potr
Christoph Wegscheider wrote:
I also have some questions:
1.) Is a successfull pbuilder build a guaranty for correct Build-Depends?
As long as you haven't mucked with the settings and installed extra
packages in the pbuilder chroot by default, this is one of the best ways
to be sure, yes.
On Thu, 20 May 2004, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> I thank everyone who contributed ideas for the script.
Some of those ideas have now been implemented. Add this to sources.list to test:
deb http://funkyware.konflux.at debian/
Now, unless anybody strongly objects, the package will be submitte
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:13:47AM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Hi, I'm interested in adoptiong python-gd but I'm not (yet) a DD.
> I'm started my application process few weeks ago and my first official
> package (phpldapadmin) is already in unstable.
>
> I'm looking for someone interested i
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:03:52AM -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > > If the current version in the archive is 1.1, and you upload an NMU
> > > of 1.2, that NMU should be 1.2-0.1 (so that a maintainer upload of
> > > 1.2-1 supersedes it).
> >
> > It should be 1.1-0.1
On 2004-06-08 Christoph Wegscheider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 2.) Is there an easy way to untighten the automatically (${shlibs:Depends})
> generated Depends? I mean, maybe a lower version of a lib would also do
> (having testing/unstable user in mind).
[...]
You could specify the dependo
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:58:26AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:03:52AM -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> > But if the NMU is a new upstream version 1.2, then the correct NMU
> > version is 1.2-0.1. This is in the Debian Developer's Reference:
> >
> > "If it is absolutely
Frank Küster wrote:
You should try to separate non-debian-specific and debian-specific
parts, IMO.
I have been trying to keep to standard Bourne Shell so it should be ok.
I will try to package it in a normal tar file with (bin, etc, etc)
not exist or something like this. I ended up having to
Hello Geert,
* Geert Stappers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-08 15:08]:
[...]
> > But if the NMU is a new upstream version 1.2, then the correct NMU
> > version is 1.2-0.1. This is in the Debian Developer's Reference:
> >
> > "If it is absolutely necessary for someone other than the usual main-
Hi!
I've just uploaded netdump package to mentors.debian.net and now am
seeking for a sponsor for this package.
The netdump client sets up the kernel to send crash dumps and/or
console messages as syslog packets to a remote system.
The netdump server listens to the network for crashed kernels to
I maintain mod_ldap_userdir and am interested in packaging it for Debian. It
allows UserDir URLs to be looked up based on homeDirectory attributes in an
LDAP directory instead of from local user accounts.
In the past year or two, several Debian users have mentioned using it, so
I'd like to package
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> Testers are also welcome.
Hi Remco,
Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at runtime
though. In the non-technical part - I see troubles with the
copyrigh
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:16:52AM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> > I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> > Testers are also welcome.
>
> Hi Remco,
>
> Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at run
> 1. Why do *you* add the exception that permits for linking w/ some
> GPL-incompatible program
> a) in a debian-specific diff? The exception has to be granted by
> upstream and they have to release a version that has this exception.
> You must not add it yourself!
The license is from the 0.98 ve
> I haven't looked at this particular case, but it should be just fine to
> say "the copyright owner gave permission to do this" (as long as it's
> not specific to Debian, etc.), without necessarily having to wait for a
> new upstream release. Of course, I'd be inclined to include the full
> text o
* Goswin von Brederlow [Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:24:49 +0200]:
> > P.S.: Of course, if there is a better place to ask about a build on a
> > specific arch, I'll gladly take any advice.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
is this the right place to ask for a rebuild? i posted in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
some time ago
> 2. I don't like the "No Nonsense Copyright and License for JSRS
> JavaScript Remote Scripting". It seems that debian-legal didn't like
> it either. Again you should try to contact upstream and explain
> the problem. Dual licensing w/ GPL (or LGPL) would be an option
Aargh. I somehow missed:
ht
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:02:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Similar, for libapache-mod-filter, there is:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ madison libapache-mod-filter
> libapache-mod-filter | 1.4-5 |stable | source, alpha, arm, hppa,
> i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:36:00PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Note that the testing output says removal fails due to buggyness of the
> package: http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/aiksaurus.html
> # Trying to remove package, not update it
> # libaiksaurus-data (alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64
Hi,
W liście z wto, 08-06-2004, godz. 17:14, Remco Seesink pisze:
> > b) at the top of LICENSE file, which is otherwise pure GPL? This
> > exception seems to fit more into a file that would be called i.e.
> > COPYING, where the copying informations would be held and which
> > would contain the "e
Bengt Thuree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That depends on the complexity of the installation. In most cases,
>> it is
>> highly advisable to have a separate Makefile that does the compilation
>> and installation, and in debian/rules you only call it with appropriate
>> targets and arguments.
> ok
Hi, I'm interested in adoptiong python-gd but I'm not (yet) a DD.
I'm started my application process few weeks ago and my first official
package (phpldapadmin) is already in unstable.
I'm looking for someone interested in sponsoring me to adopt python-gd.
I've packaged python-gd adding supports a
I just uploaded potracegui_0.5.1-2 to mentors.debian.net hopefully
correcting all outstanding issues, appreciating any further comments.
potracegui (0.5.1-2) unstable; urgency=low
* adjusting the copyright file and the package description.
* fixed Build-Depends.
* Closes: #253205: ITP: potr
Christoph Wegscheider wrote:
I also have some questions:
1.) Is a successfull pbuilder build a guaranty for correct Build-Depends?
As long as you haven't mucked with the settings and installed extra
packages in the pbuilder chroot by default, this is one of the best ways
to be sure, yes.
2.) Is
On Thu, 20 May 2004, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> I thank everyone who contributed ideas for the script.
Some of those ideas have now been implemented. Add this to sources.list to test:
deb http://funkyware.konflux.at debian/
Now, unless anybody strongly objects, the package will be submitte
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:13:47AM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Hi, I'm interested in adoptiong python-gd but I'm not (yet) a DD.
> I'm started my application process few weeks ago and my first official
> package (phpldapadmin) is already in unstable.
>
> I'm looking for someone interested i
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:03:52AM -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > > If the current version in the archive is 1.1, and you upload an NMU
> > > of 1.2, that NMU should be 1.2-0.1 (so that a maintainer upload of
> > > 1.2-1 supersedes it).
> >
> > It should be 1.1-0.1
On 2004-06-08 Christoph Wegscheider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 2.) Is there an easy way to untighten the automatically (${shlibs:Depends})
> generated Depends? I mean, maybe a lower version of a lib would also do
> (having testing/unstable user in mind).
[...]
You could specify the dependo
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:58:26AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:03:52AM -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> > But if the NMU is a new upstream version 1.2, then the correct NMU
> > version is 1.2-0.1. This is in the Debian Developer's Reference:
> >
> > "If it is absolutely
Frank Küster wrote:
You should try to separate non-debian-specific and debian-specific
parts, IMO.
I have been trying to keep to standard Bourne Shell so it should be ok.
I will try to package it in a normal tar file with (bin, etc, etc)
not exist or something like this. I ended up having to put A
Hello Geert,
* Geert Stappers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-08 15:08]:
[...]
> > But if the NMU is a new upstream version 1.2, then the correct NMU
> > version is 1.2-0.1. This is in the Debian Developer's Reference:
> >
> > "If it is absolutely necessary for someone other than the usual main-
Hi!
I've just uploaded netdump package to mentors.debian.net and now am
seeking for a sponsor for this package.
The netdump client sets up the kernel to send crash dumps and/or
console messages as syslog packets to a remote system.
The netdump server listens to the network for crashed kernels to
I maintain mod_ldap_userdir and am interested in packaging it for Debian. It
allows UserDir URLs to be looked up based on homeDirectory attributes in an
LDAP directory instead of from local user accounts.
In the past year or two, several Debian users have mentioned using it, so
I'd like to package
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> Testers are also welcome.
Hi Remco,
Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at runtime
though. In the non-technical part - I see troubles with the
copyrigh
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:36:00PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Note that the testing output says removal fails due to buggyness of the
> package: http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/aiksaurus.html
> # Trying to remove package, not update it
> # libaiksaurus-data (alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:16:52AM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> > I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> > Testers are also welcome.
>
> Hi Remco,
>
> Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at run
> 2. I don't like the "No Nonsense Copyright and License for JSRS
> JavaScript Remote Scripting". It seems that debian-legal didn't like
> it either. Again you should try to contact upstream and explain
> the problem. Dual licensing w/ GPL (or LGPL) would be an option
Aargh. I somehow missed:
ht
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:02:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Similar, for libapache-mod-filter, there is:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ madison libapache-mod-filter
> libapache-mod-filter | 1.4-5 |stable | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386,
> ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
> 1. Why do *you* add the exception that permits for linking w/ some
> GPL-incompatible program
> a) in a debian-specific diff? The exception has to be granted by
> upstream and they have to release a version that has this exception.
> You must not add it yourself!
The license is from the 0.98 ve
> I haven't looked at this particular case, but it should be just fine to
> say "the copyright owner gave permission to do this" (as long as it's
> not specific to Debian, etc.), without necessarily having to wait for a
> new upstream release. Of course, I'd be inclined to include the full
> text o
* Goswin von Brederlow [Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:24:49 +0200]:
> > P.S.: Of course, if there is a better place to ask about a build on a
> > specific arch, I'll gladly take any advice.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
is this the right place to ask for a rebuild? i posted in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
some time ago
Hi,
W liście z wto, 08-06-2004, godz. 17:14, Remco Seesink pisze:
> > b) at the top of LICENSE file, which is otherwise pure GPL? This
> > exception seems to fit more into a file that would be called i.e.
> > COPYING, where the copying informations would be held and which
> > would contain the "e
Hi John,
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, John Morrissey wrote:
> I maintain mod_ldap_userdir and am interested in packaging it for Debian. It
> allows UserDir URLs to be looked up based on homeDirectory attributes in an
> LDAP directory instead of from local user accounts.
>
> In the past year or two, sever
45 matches
Mail list logo
