Dear People,
I've tried my hand at building Subversion 1.1.0-rc2 packages. I've
imitated the packaging of the official Debian packages as far as possible.
Whenever possible I applied the Debian patches. However, since I don't
understand exactly what I am doing, I suppose some breakage was
in
Mathew is right. I have to be nicer with new people. And i should not write
mails at 2AM when i am almost falling asleep and not taking more care of my
language.
However my points stand. DFSG are the guides by which a DD and non-DD wanting
to put packages in the repository should be enlightened. T
On Sun, 22, Aug, 2004 at 09:48:17AM -0600, Wesley J Landaker spoke thus..
> I'm willing to sponsor it once I can get it to build cleanly. That might
> mean waiting a bit for some of the kde dependancies to trickle into
> unstable, but if you drop me a reminder to try again, I'll give it
> anothe
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:35:34PM +0100, Mark Hymers wrote:
[...]
> There is a KDE NMU in incoming at the moment which fixes the libopenexr
> issue. Could you offer me one piece of advice? Should I make the
> Build-Depends on kdelibs4 versioned (i.e. kdelibs4 (>> 3.3.0-1.1)) to
> make sure buil
On Friday 27 August 2004 06:35, Mark Hymers wrote:
> On Sun, 22, Aug, 2004 at 09:48:17AM -0600, Wesley J Landaker spoke
> thus..
>
> > I'm willing to sponsor it once I can get it to build cleanly. That
> > might mean waiting a bit for some of the kde dependancies to
> > trickle into unstable, but i
On Thursday 26 August 2004 23:43, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On the other hand, as a comment, if the package has never been
> uploaded, it does not make sense to have several changelog entries
> (2.7c-1 and 2.7c-2). They should be put together, to avoid
> dpkg-buildpackage to build a .changes which wi
On Fri, 27, Aug, 2004 at 02:44:27PM +0200, Andreas Metzler spoke thus..
> No, that is useless. - It does not change a thing.
>
> The buildds do not automatically evaluate Build-Depends before they
> download and try to build the package. They download the package,
> install build-dependcies (ignor
On Thursday 26 August 2004 22:11, Lawrence Williams wrote:
> John Buttery wrote:
> >* Lawrence Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-26
23:26:25 -0230]:
> >>It is pointless to leave them open, since neither package can ever
> >> be released.
> >
> > Am I missing something here...couldn't these pa
Wesley J Landaker wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2004 22:11, Lawrence Williams wrote:
John Buttery wrote:
* Lawrence Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-26
23:26:25 -0230]:
It is pointless to leave them open, since neither package can ever
be released.
Am I missin
Hi all,
I have upgraded the automake to 1.7.9 and that took care
of some the errors
but when i try to generate the Makefile through the configure
command it gives me an error saying saying that the script file is not
found which is mainboard.py .
Which i think due to a path that it did not fi
I'm doing a little houskeeping before sarge releases.
Then I stumble upon this:
Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in stable >= new
version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable.
Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in unstable >= new
version (1.6-2
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 16:38, Amaya wrote:
> I'm doing a little houskeeping before sarge releases.
> Then I stumble upon this:
>
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in stable >= new
>version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable.
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version
* Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-27 17:02:43 -0400]:
> If I recall correctly, an epoch cannot be removed or else people with
> the epoch packages will never have a sane upgrade path.
Exactly. Someone has only one chance: upstream reasons; they change
name, so package name has to be
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:38:15PM +0200, Amaya wrote:
> I'm doing a little houskeeping before sarge releases.
> Then I stumble upon this:
>
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in stable >= new
>version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable.
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb:
On Sun, 22, Aug, 2004 at 09:48:17AM -0600, Wesley J Landaker spoke thus..
> I'm willing to sponsor it once I can get it to build cleanly. That might
> mean waiting a bit for some of the kde dependancies to trickle into
> unstable, but if you drop me a reminder to try again, I'll give it
> anothe
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:35:34PM +0100, Mark Hymers wrote:
[...]
> There is a KDE NMU in incoming at the moment which fixes the libopenexr
> issue. Could you offer me one piece of advice? Should I make the
> Build-Depends on kdelibs4 versioned (i.e. kdelibs4 (>> 3.3.0-1.1)) to
> make sure buil
On Friday 27 August 2004 06:35, Mark Hymers wrote:
> On Sun, 22, Aug, 2004 at 09:48:17AM -0600, Wesley J Landaker spoke
> thus..
>
> > I'm willing to sponsor it once I can get it to build cleanly. That
> > might mean waiting a bit for some of the kde dependancies to
> > trickle into unstable, but i
On Thursday 26 August 2004 23:43, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On the other hand, as a comment, if the package has never been
> uploaded, it does not make sense to have several changelog entries
> (2.7c-1 and 2.7c-2). They should be put together, to avoid
> dpkg-buildpackage to build a .changes which wi
On Fri, 27, Aug, 2004 at 02:44:27PM +0200, Andreas Metzler spoke thus..
> No, that is useless. - It does not change a thing.
>
> The buildds do not automatically evaluate Build-Depends before they
> download and try to build the package. They download the package,
> install build-dependcies (ignor
On Thursday 26 August 2004 22:11, Lawrence Williams wrote:
> John Buttery wrote:
> >* Lawrence Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-26
23:26:25 -0230]:
> >>It is pointless to leave them open, since neither package can ever
> >> be released.
> >
> > Am I missing something here...couldn't these pa
Wesley J Landaker wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2004 22:11, Lawrence Williams wrote:
John Buttery wrote:
* Lawrence Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-26
23:26:25 -0230]:
It is pointless to leave them open, since neither package can ever
be released.
Am I missing somet
Hi all,
I have upgraded the automake to 1.7.9 and that took care
of some the errors
but when i try to generate the Makefile through the configure
command it gives me an error saying saying that the script file is not
found which is mainboard.py .
Which i think due to a path that it did not fi
I'm doing a little houskeeping before sarge releases.
Then I stumble upon this:
Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in stable >= new
version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable.
Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in unstable >= new
version (1.6-2
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 16:38, Amaya wrote:
> I'm doing a little houskeeping before sarge releases.
> Then I stumble upon this:
>
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in stable >= new
>version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable.
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version
* Chris Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-27 17:02:43 -0400]:
> If I recall correctly, an epoch cannot be removed or else people with
> the epoch packages will never have a sane upgrade path.
Exactly. Someone has only one chance: upstream reasons; they change
name, so package name has to be
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:38:15PM +0200, Amaya wrote:
> I'm doing a little houskeeping before sarge releases.
> Then I stumble upon this:
>
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb: old version (1:1.6-1) in stable >= new
>version (1.6-2) targeted at unstable.
> Rejected: jail_1.6-2_i386.deb:
Dear customer!
We updated our programs list, and now we offer you more new software items
Visit our full catalog and check new software titles here:
http://www.softbetterone.info/?classic
With best regards,
Product Manager
Mitchell Bolden
27 matches
Mail list logo
