also sprach Joshua D. Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.08.0212 +0200]:
> I am have not used waproamd, however, getwifi currently joins
> wireless networks with a similar configuration. It is meant to be
> run to join networks that you are using regularly. The updates
> I have been working on wi
also sprach Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.08.0120 +0200]:
> No, why would you do that? It's the package name that's wrong
> (confusing) here, not the library name.
I think I would disagree. Upstream has not read the libtool manual.
In short: do not use -release unless you are publis
36 hours of freedom.
http://stomaching.stuff4yourjr.info/?solemnlyxtvuypracticeszvpseed
Extra power. Don't think. Just act.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 10:01:30AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.08.0120 +0200]:
> > No, why would you do that? It's the package name that's wrong
> > (confusing) here, not the library name.
> I think I would disagree. Upstream has not rea
On 5/8/05, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Joshua D. Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.08.0212 +0200]:
> > I am have not used waproamd, however, getwifi currently joins
> > wireless networks with a similar configuration. It is meant to be
> > run to join networks that yo
On Sunday 08 May 2005 12:20 am, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 01:24:31PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Should I change the upstream version numbers of the existing library?
>
> No, why would you do that? It's the package name that's wrong (confusing)
> here, not the library nam
On 07.05.2005, at 19:03, François-Denis Gonthier wrote:
After I said there was no O or RFA, some people on #debian-mentors
recommended
that I put up an ITA to claim the package. I really don't know if
it was the
Right Thing to do in retrospect but nor the Debian NM and Reference
guide had
no
Ricardo Mones wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 10:23:19 -0400
> "Brenda J. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anyway your case is clearly different, your source is a kpr file not
> a pdf one.
>
>
>>If not, then how should I proceed? I can put the .kpr, .ps and .pdf
>>in the package... I could pl
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 09:49:38AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sunday 08 May 2005 12:20 am, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 01:24:31PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > Should I change the upstream version numbers of the existing library?
> > No, why would you do that? It's
On Thu, 09 May 2002, Marc Haber wrote:
> From the docs I found, there is no legitimate reason for any package
> to define rpath on a Debian system. Is this correct? Does this also
> apply to other Linux systems?
It is correct for anything that shall end up in the usual ld.so directories.
It does n
> * Why don't you want these files to be conffiles ?
Because they're not a configuration files and I think they definitly shouldn't
be listed in conffiles. If for example the READMEs change in the future, dpkg
will ask the user if he/she wants the newer version of them, but that
shouldn't be que
Le Dimanche 08 Mai 2005 14:40, Patryk Cisek a écrit :
> > * If they really mustn't be, they maybe don't belong to /etc (a README
> > might be more appropriate in /usr/share/doc)
>
> Yes, maybe they should be in /usr/share/doc, however it's good to have them
> in /etc. That's why I asked if it's a g
On May 8, 2005 07:04 am, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 07.05.2005, at 19:03, François-Denis Gonthier wrote:
> > After I said there was no O or RFA, some people on #debian-mentors
> > recommended
> > that I put up an ITA to claim the package. I really don't know if
> > it was the
> > Right Thing to do i
On May 8, 2005 07:04 am, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 07.05.2005, at 19:03, François-Denis Gonthier wrote:
> > After I said there was no O or RFA, some people on #debian-mentors
> > recommended
> > that I put up an ITA to claim the package. I really don't know if
> > it was the
> > Right Thing to do i
Patryk Cisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because they're not a configuration files and I think they definitly
> shouldn't be listed in conffiles. If for example the READMEs change in
> the future, dpkg will ask the user if he/she wants the newer version of
> them, but that shouldn't be questiona
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 09:37:54AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Joshua D. Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.08.0212 +0200]:
> > I am have not used waproamd, however, getwifi currently joins
> > wireless networks with a similar configuration. It is meant to be
> > run to join netwo
> I thought the user would only be prompted if the file changed *and* they
> had made local modifications to the old file. The last is fairly unlikely
> for READMEs.
Yes that's true. I've included these READMEs to conffiles now. Changed package
files are at:
http://poczta.prezu.one.pl/xlogmaster/
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 21:04 +0200, Patryk Cisek wrote:
> > I thought the user would only be prompted if the file changed *and* they
> > had made local modifications to the old file. The last is fairly unlikely
> > for READMEs.
> Yes that's true. I've included these READMEs to conffiles now. Change
hoi :)
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:42:39PM -0600, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> I think the package is ready for a wider audience. I just updated it
> to the just-released upstream version 0.9, it's available here:
why do you patch the Makefile?
does 'make prefix=/usr' not work?
--
Martin Waitz
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 15:12 +1000, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> I'm interested on this package. However It appears to me that there
> is no ITP for cogito.
So for shortly, Anibal could be your daddy.
--
David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.damog.net/
Women should be obscene an
Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
] On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:42:39PM -0600, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
] > I think the package is ready for a wider audience. I just updated it
] > to the just-released upstream version 0.9, it's available here:
]
] why do you patch the Makefile?
] does 'ma
Get it here:
http://highlab.com/~seb/debian
Before 0.10, the upstream installed both the binaries (actually shell
scripts) and the shell libraries in /usr/bin. Starting with 0.10, the
shell libraries are moved to /usr/lib/cogito. This seems to me like a
fine thing to do, any reason Debian
Howdy mentors,
I'm attempting to start my long slide into package maintainership :-)
There is a wealth of material available on how to be a Debian package
maintainer. I'm trying to find my way through it slowly. Here's what
I've done:
- Pick an itch (package) to scratch: lojban-common (bug #30
Sebastian Kuzminsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Before 0.10, the upstream installed both the binaries (actually shell
> scripts) and the shell libraries in /usr/bin. Starting with 0.10, the
> shell libraries are moved to /usr/lib/cogito. This seems to me like a
> fine thing to do, any reason D
On 08-May-2005, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sebastian Kuzminsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Before 0.10, the upstream installed both the binaries (actually
> > shell scripts) and the shell libraries in /usr/bin. Starting with
> > 0.10, the shell libraries are moved to /usr/lib/cogito. This
> > s
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 08-May-2005, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If they're really just shell libraries (and hence
>> platform-independent), they should go into /usr/share rather than
>> /usr/lib per the FHS.
> Relevant sections of the FHS:
> 4.4 /usr/lib : Libraries for progr
also sprach Joshua D. Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.08.2022 +0200]:
> I will give waproamd a try and see the problems it has. However,
> there are many programs that do similar, if not the same function
> (ex text editors). I will let everyone know when I have an update.
Sure, and that's go
Hi Ben,
Ben Finney wrote:
Howdy mentors,
I'm attempting to start my long slide into package maintainership :-)
Welcome :-) I also started this journey some weeks ago, maybe some
hints can help you:
- In addition to the documents below, reading the
New Maintainers Guide: http://www.debian.org/doc/
28 matches
Mail list logo
