On Fri, Sep 30, 2005, Emfox Zhou wrote:
> in fact, the upstream has not officially released a tarball, i just
> used the CVS checkouted ones. you know, thing like Makefile.in
> couldn't be in CVS...
>
> so, what should i do, is it ok to package the orig.tar.gz after
> running autogen.sh, so that
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 11:00:47PM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
>> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
You might consider using the -v 0.2.2.1 option in dh_make to
convert this to a compliant version number. The second -1 will still be
th
Hallo,
I reopened Bug#267042 and I worked a bit on packaging libptp2 [1].
This is one of my first packages, so I would like to have your opinion,
is it in a decent shape enough to ask to sponsor it?
The original ITP author does not respond anymore so I make the annunce
here that I indend to maint
* Package name: ksplash-engine-moodin
Version : 0.4.2
Upstream Author : Christian Leh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://moodwrod.com/files/
* License : GPL
Description : fading splash screen engine for KDE
Heavily customizable ksplash engine for various t
* Package name : kscope
Version : 1.3.0
Upstream Author : Elad Lahav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://kscope.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
Description : Source Editing Environment for KDE
KScope is a KDE front-end to Cscope. It provides a source-editing environment
for large C projects.
hi all,
i'm looking for a sponsor for log4cpp (an orphaned package that i adopted).
you can find the package on mentors.debian.net
cheers,
Fathi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi everyone,
i have a "little" problem with one package. It
contains a rfc doc, which it's clearly non DFSG compliant. The package
is created properly and all this, but the problems cames when updating
the package, since the new orig source contains again the rfc doc and
the debian changelog ch
[resent to list]
Ghe Rivero wrote:
> i have a "little" problem with one package. It contains a rfc doc,
> which it's clearly non DFSG compliant. The package is created properly
> and all this, but the problems cames when updating the package, since
> the new orig source contains again the rfc d
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:00:43PM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> There is an issue with the package name, lintian says:
> W: libptp2: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libptp2-1
> but libptp2 is not intended to be the second version of libptp, it is a
> different thing and so I (and the upstream
Hi all!
I have finally decided to use uscan and a small script to do it. Of
course, any suggestion or improvement is really welcomed!!!
Ghe Rivero
Watch File:
version=3
opts="dversionmangle=s/\.dfsg\.\d+$//,uversionmangle=s/\-\d+$//" \
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora
This is great! I can't think of any improvements right now; surely
someone will need it to be generalized, though :)
Hope it gets saved for later (at least its archived!); maybe Matt
could link to it?
--
Clear skies,
Justin
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 04:19:29PM +0200, Ghe Rivero wrote:
> Hi all!
Hi,
I adopted wmfire earlier this month, and now have a new upstream release
packaged and ready for upload. My original sponsor is busy at Berkeley,
so I wondered if anyone here might be interested in sponsoring wmfire?
License: GPL
Short Description: very cool fiery way of showing your C
Pierre Machard wrote:
> Do not worry if I set my name as uploader, so that it's easy for me to
> track packages I am sponsoring.
On debian-project[1], Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Here's what I want (if anyone is interested - so far I have only
> experied hostility when I offer my weird non-sponsorin
Re: Thaddeus H. Black in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Pierre Machard wrote:
> > Do not worry if I set my name as uploader, so that it's easy for me to
> > track packages I am sponsoring.
The PTS does perfectly suit this, and you can even subscribe to a
package before it is in the archive. There is no nee
Hello *,
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 11:24:12AM -0400, Charles Fry wrote:
> I adopted wmfire earlier this month, and now have a new upstream release
> packaged and ready for upload. My original sponsor is busy at Berkeley,
> so I wondered if anyone here might be interested in sponsoring wmfire?
I'm i
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Justin Pryzby wrote:
dh_make is a tool which is to be used precisely once for each package,
dh_make can be run multiple times on the same source tree if there is
need to customize the debianisation. See:
/usr/share/doc/dh-make/README.examples
/usr/share/doc/dh-make/exam
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 12:08 +0800, Emfox Zhou wrote:
> in fact, the upstream has not officially released a tarball, i just
> used the CVS checkouted ones. you know, thing like Makefile.in
> couldn't be in CVS...
Ooops, I see.
> so, what should i do, is it ok to package the orig.tar.gz after
> ru
Hi all,
According to [0], the fonttools maintainer offers his packages for
adoption. I would like to adopt fonttools as I use it for when creating
fonts packages (2 so far). I have not received a reply to my wishlist
bug (#329171) requesting that the maintainer upload the new upstream
version that
Ooops, forgot this url:
http://sponsors.debian.net/viewpkg.php?id=90
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Andreas Fester wrote:
> not necessarily. It must be the original, but it must not be pristine.
That's self-contradictory. And wrong.
> One reason could be to remove autotools dependencies, another could be
> to remove files which would otherwise be removed by the "clean" target
> and would end up
20 matches
Mail list logo
