Li Daobing wrote:
> qterm (0.4.0pre2-0.3) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * NMU.
> * Add icon. (closes: #289970)
> * del admin/CVS.
> * debian/control
> - update Standards-Version to 3.6.1.
> - update debhelper to 4.1.0(statisfy compat and cdbs)
> * del debian/manpage.1.ex debian/manpa
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 01:16:57PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>I have still not totally given up on convincing him, though, so I'll be
> >>in touch :-)
> >It's not acceptable to install a shared library without an SONAME for two
> >reasons:
> >- if the library'
Li Daobing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I want to modify the source tarball, for example, I want to delete
> the admin/CVS and debian/*.ex in the source, should I modify the version
> number, for example, called it 0.4.0pre2.dfsg.1-1 or some other name?
The version number consists of two parts
* Li Daobing [Sun, 22 May 2005 15:11:06 +0800]:
Hi!
> > The official maintainer is Anthony Fok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, but he did not
> > work since Wed, 16 Apr 2003.
If you'd like to adopt the package instead of NMUing, that'd be great,
since the package will receive more attention. I've asked
Steve Langasek wrote:
But if I do introduce SONAME to the Debian version, what version should
it have? The only sensible answer that I can think of is "0", as any
other answer is sure to conflict with the upstream choice, should they
come to their senses in the future. I don't see the major di
Hi,
On Friday 20 May 2005 14:09, Njes Nilsen wrote:
> Am a bit unsure whether this is the correct mailing list, but I ask anyway:
debian-boot would have been the right mailing list...
> What I want is to edit the installation so the user get another option
> here, which will install some given p
Thanks for you reply.
The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a
"proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software.
And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it.
So, i don't really know how to start. For my soft, I ran dh_make
On Sunday 22 May 2005 1:43 pm, punx120 wrote:
> Thanks for you reply.
>
> The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a
> "proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software.
Doesn't that make your program non-free in Debian?
Free Redistribution
The license of a
Hi,
The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a
"proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software.
I had a look into it; since they only seem to provide the library in
binary format, this changes some things significantly: The library
itself can only go i
Neil Williams wrote:
On Sunday 22 May 2005 1:43 pm, punx120 wrote:
Thanks for you reply.
The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a
"proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software.
Doesn't that make your program non-free in Debian?
Free Redistribu
On Sunday 22 May 2005 2:56 pm, punx120 wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> >>And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it.
Then you should not use this library with free software, certainly not with
the GPL.
> > So what licence are you using for your program?
>
> Since it's
On Sunday 22 May 2005 2:51 pm, Andreas Fester wrote:
> > The library, I'd like to package is FMOD (fmod.org), and it's a
> > "proprietary" library, it's free to use in a non-commercial software.
Can't be done. Debian is commercial - the GPL expressly requires that software
CAN be sold for a price
I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM
or Sun JDK (for build) and JRE (for execution). I know that
this means the packages will end up in contrib. However, I am
not sure what the correct way to express the depends and build-
depends. Can someone help me out on this?
-Rob
Just so things are clear - I am not a lawyer.
Neil Williams wrote:
On Sunday 22 May 2005 2:56 pm, punx120 wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
And i don't think the developers will give me their code to package it.
Then you should not use this library with free software, certainly n
I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM or Sun
JDK (for build) and JRE (for execution). I know that this means the
packages will end up in contrib. However, I am not sure what the
correct way to express the depends and build- depends. Can someone help
me out on this?
elijah wright wrote:
>
>> I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM or Sun
>> JDK (for build) and JRE (for execution). I know that this means the
>> packages will end up in contrib. However, I am not sure what the
>> correct way to express the depends and build- depends. Ca
On 22.05.2005, at 19:15, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I'm sorry, but that is totally wrong. Are you claiming that
rsyncrypto is illegal, because it is GPL and links with OpenSSL
(which is BSD)?
And if you claim this ridiculous claim, who is the offended party?
Who has the power to sue me for GPL v
Hello,
A short question: I have a package, where I run autopoint during build
process. Now the situation is, that gettext only suggests, but not
depends on cvs. So without adding cvs to 'Build-Depends:', the build
fails in a chrooted environment (pbuilder). What I need to know is, if
Debian's buil
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> A short question: I have a package, where I run autopoint during build
> process. Now the situation is, that gettext only suggests, but not
> depends on cvs. So without adding cvs to 'Build-Depends:', the build
> fails in a chrooted environment (pbuilde
Well, all this discussion about license are too complicated for me since
I'm not used with license.
I'm just a student who wrote last year a program for my studies. I don't
want it to integrate debian.
I just wanted to place source files on my website. And I thought that
putting a debian pac
Am Sonntag, den 22.05.2005, 19:49 +0200 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> On Sun, 22 May 2005, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>
> > A short question: I have a package, where I run autopoint during build
> > process. Now the situation is, that gettext only suggests, but not
> > depends on cvs. So without adding cvs
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 01:22:19PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> elijah wright wrote:
> >
> >> I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM or Sun
> >> JDK (for build) and JRE (for execution). I know that this means the
> >> packages will end up in contrib. However, I am n
I demand that Shachar Shemesh may or may not have written...
> I'm sorry if this is well known. I haven't seen it anywhere, and I thought
> I'd share it with everybody.
> During the initial package development stage, there is a lot of repeated
> compilation of the same package over and over again
Michael Koch wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 01:22:19PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
>>elijah wright wrote:
>>
I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM or Sun
JDK (for build) and JRE (for execution). I know that this means the
packages will end up in contr
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:19:14PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Michael Koch wrote:
> > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 01:22:19PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >
> >>elijah wright wrote:
> >>
> I am trying to package a couple of programs that depend on IBM or Sun
> JDK (for build) and
Michael Koch wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:19:14PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>>Also, are there any good references on getting Java apps to compile with
>>free Java development tools? (No, I have not yet Googled for this info).
>
>
> Most free runtimes provide directly or indirectly
After your answerers on this thread:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/05/msg00381.html I tried to
edit the tasksel .deb file (just for my own testing purpose atm.)
And I extracted the .deb file to a folder using the dpkg -x command.
Edited some of the files, and thought I could just
Njes Nilsen wrote:
> After your answerers on this thread:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/05/msg00381.html I tried to
> edit the tasksel .deb file (just for my own testing purpose atm.)
> And I extracted the .deb file to a folder using the dpkg -x command.
> Edited some of the files
Please sponsor me.
I've just posted project xdm-options_0.1_all.deb on SourceForge.
Its very competitve and opposite in philosophy to GDM. Eye candy? Or
functinality? (it's not meant to be a "replacement" but the alternative
for the rest ;)
I have other personal projects as well, some large,
Am Sonntag, den 22.05.2005, 14:19 -0400 schrieb Roberto C. Sanchez:
[..]
> Also, are there any good references on getting Java apps to compile with
> free Java development tools? (No, I have not yet Googled for this info).
You could also ask the guys from the pkg-java project:
http://pkg-java.ali
On Sunday 22 May 2005 6:55 pm, punx120 wrote:
> Well, all this discussion about license are too complicated for me since
> I'm not used with license.
OK, but do make time to learn about licences if you're planning any more
programming - it's an integral part of the process.
> Concerning the lice
I just had a grave bug filed against my releaseforge package.
I have traced the fault to an issue with the version of
pyqt-tools. If the package is compiled with the version
of pyqt-tools in sarge (3.13), it needs to run against
python-qt3 version 3.13. However, if it is compiled against
pyqt-too
On Sunday 22 May 2005 6:15 pm, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >You mean link a GPL program against a library that is non-free?!?!?!
> >
> >"Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries?
> >Your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If your program
> >depends on a non-free library
Hi,
I authored xdm-options (and have man other pet projects, C++, OpenGL, much
more). xdm-options is on Source Forge and has screenshots.
My gpg private key (see user id below) was made using defaults from
sarge's gpg --gen-key. Should I beg for it to be signed? My real
location is below too.
John Hendrickson wrote on 22/05/2005 19:18:
> Please sponsor me.
>
> I've just posted project xdm-options_0.1_all.deb on SourceForge.
Please read the new maintainers guide is you haven't done so already.
And if you want us to review your package (and potentially sponsor it),
please supply a URL t
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 01:07:38PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >>Another thing that comes up is an incompatibility between the deb
> >>currently provided by the site (as well as binaries compiled with
> >>libargtable compiled from source) and the deb we would provide. Binaries
> >>compiled w
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 12:33:31PM +0200, David Gil wrote:
> I did it, Depends now looks like this:
>
> Depends: python (>= 2.3), python (<< 2.4)
>
> I have read about it before at debian python policy. But the problem now
> is that my ubuntu friends can not install reddo cause ubuntu use
unsubscribe
38 matches
Mail list logo
