Dear all,
I recently uploaded a binary incompatible new version of the ViSP C++ library.
We have in testing a package libvisp2.8_2.8.0-5.1 and in unstable a
package libvisp2.9_2.9.0-2
piuparts testing2sid check now fails, see:
https://piuparts.debian.org/testing2sid/fail/libvisp-dev_2.9.0-2.log
On 07/13/2014 07:24 AM, Eriberto wrote:
> Hi Tong,
>
> I think that no exist a place. But I use it:
>
> $ find /usr/share/doc -name '*changelog.Debian.gz*' -exec cat {} >>
> changelogs.gz \;
>
> You can use zcat, zgrep or mcview to read the changelogs.gz file. I
> prefer mcview.
>
> Regards,
>
Hi All,
I've noticed that the PTS does not display the usual warning about
Lazarus 1.2.4 released but not packaged. I've tried to investigate the
issue and found that upstream has rearranged their repository layout
under SF.net so that the watch site [1] does not work anymore for it.
The new file
Hi Thomas,
On 13.07.2014 10:41, Thomas Moulard wrote:
I recently uploaded a binary incompatible new version of the ViSP C++ library.
We have in testing a package libvisp2.8_2.8.0-5.1 and in unstable a
package libvisp2.9_2.9.0-2
So far, so good. The library changed it's SOVERSION and thus a ne
Hi,
On 13/07/14 11:13, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've noticed that the PTS does not display the usual warning about
> Lazarus 1.2.4 released but not packaged. I've tried to investigate the
> issue and found that upstream has rearranged their repository layout
> under SF.net so that th
Hi Daniel,
On Sun, 2014-07-13 at 11:21 +0100, Daniel Lintott wrote:
> Hi,
>
...
>
> I think your actually the following the bug at [1]. You can see the
> conversation I had with Paul in that bug report.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel Lintott
I have tested your tool for Lazarus and it looks working a
Hi Abou,
On 13/07/14 12:40, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> ...
>
> I have tested your tool for Lazarus and it looks working as expected.
>
That's always good to know!
> I'd recommend to use this solution in [2] as it looks really easy to
> maintain/update with so few php lines. Als
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:34:30AM +, T o n g wrote:
> What's that '-i' is for in the 'debuild -i' command?
Looks like it's passed to lintian.
> I was looking for it in debuild & dpkg-buildpackage man pages but still
> wasn't sure what it is for.
>
> The actual whole command I use is:
>
>
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 01:28:23PM +, T o n g wrote:
> > override_dh_auto_install:
> > install -m 755 ddclient \
> > $(DESTDIR)/usr/sbin/ddclient
> >
> > install -D -m 755 debian/ddclient.NetworkManager \
> > $(
> )/etc/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d/50-ddclient
> > dh_aut
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 03:51:24AM +, T o n g wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I used the `dh_make` to create a new rules file, but found that what I
> want to install are not in the final package.
>
> Here is what the old rules file looks like:
>
> install: build
> dh_testdir
> dh_testroot
>
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:02:05 +0200, Ross Gammon wrote:
>>> I'm wondering if there is a central place that I can search for all
>>> Debian change logs for all packages, to see if the same lintian
>>> problem I'm having now have been dealt with before, and also see how
>>> exactly those lintian prob
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:19:08 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> I used the `dh_make` to create a new rules file, but found that what I
>> want to install are not in the final package.
>>
>> Here is what the old rules file looks like:
>>
>> install: build
>> dh_testdir dh_testroot dh_clean
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:18:21 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> I saw in the log,
>>
>>...
>>dh_installdirs
>> debian/rules override_dh_auto_install
>> make[1]: Entering directory '/export/build/pkg/ddclient/bld/
>> ddclient-3.8.2'
>> install -m 755 ddclient \
>> /usr/sbin/ddclient
>
} I found that if I use -i I will get the following problems, whereas if -i
} is omitted, then they won't show up.
}
} I: ddclient: unused-debconf-template ddclient/hostslist
} I: ddclient: unused-debconf-template ddclient/blankhostslist
I cannot replicate this.
AFAIK the debuild parameter "-i"
Riley Baird wrote:
> > I don't think that this was the author's intention.
>
> > From a legal point of view, GPL 2.0 does mean GPL 2.0 only, but I
> > agree that this probably wasn't the author's intention.
Well, it could be argued if this little notice in README carries more
legal weight than th
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 01:37:52PM +, T o n g wrote:
> > Note that you can achieve the same using dh_install(1) and probably
> > dh_installdirs(1), without writing override code.
>
> Did you mean this in debian/rules?
>
> ---
> # main packaging script based on dh7 synt
Hi,
I would like to know if anyone is interested in maintain the .deb package
for YACReader (www.yacreader.com). Right now, and thanks to a contributor,
the project has a beta package ready, but it still needs some work:
https://bitbucket.org/luisangelsm/yacreader/issue/15/yacreader-debian-ubuntu-
Package: sponsorship-requests
Subject: RFS - policyd-weight/0.1.15.2-8
Hi everybody,
currently, policyd-weight is broken in unstable/testing due to recent
libnet-dns-perl upgrade,
technically speaking policyd-weight used Net::DNS::Packet function dh_expand()
which does not
exist anymore. This
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-12, 20:32:
I don't doubt that compatibility.min.js is needed. What I questioned
is whether we ever need compatibility.js in the binary package.
Indeed. I missed the "non-" of "non-minified" in your message. The
non-minified version was indeed not used and in fact som
Hi,
On 13.07.2014 20:13, Werner Detter wrote:
> dget -x
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/policyd-weight/policyd-weight_0.1.15.2-8.dsc
I uploaded your package as is, as the diff is very small. Please
follow-up on the bug next time, if you'd like to ping us. That being
said, I wond
Your message dated Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:34:19 +0200
with message-id <53c2d12b.20...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Urgent: could anyone please sponsor upload of
policyd-weight due to RC-Bug _before_ package will be removed?
has caused the Debian Bug report #753018,
regarding RFS - policyd-weight/
Your message dated Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:34:19 +0200
with message-id <53c2d12b.20...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Urgent: could anyone please sponsor upload of
policyd-weight due to RC-Bug _before_ package will be removed?
has caused the Debian Bug report #753018,
regarding RFS - policyd-weight/
Hi again,
Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-13 20:24:00)
> >>Who is the copyright holder for the files in debian/? According to the
> >>copyright file it's WANG Lu. :-P
> >Indeed it was. If you look at the upstream repository you'll see a
> >Debian directory
>
> Oops, I missed it.
> (Wouldn't it make
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:29:37 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> dh_install(1) is a program, not a target.
>
>> install -m 755 ddclient \
>>$(DESTDIR)/usr/sbin/ddclient
>>
>> install -D -m 755 debian/ddclient.NetworkManager \
>>$(DESTDIR)/etc/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d/
On 07/14/2014 12:20 AM, T o n g wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:29:37 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>
>> dh_install(1) is a program, not a target.
>>
>>> install -m 755 ddclient \ $(DESTDIR)/usr/sbin/ddclient
>>>
>>> install -D -m 755 debian/ddclient.NetworkManager \
>>> $(DESTDIR)/etc/Netwo
Hi,
Is it possible to separate gpg signing from package building?
As I'm still trying to learn Debian package building, I've found myself
fallen into this silly loop many times -- Thinking that the package would
be fine, I build it with gpg signing, but only to find out minutes later
that I
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:26:22 +0200, Ross Gammon wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:29:37 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>>
>>> dh_install(1) is a program, not a target.
>>>
install -m 755 ddclient \ $(DESTDIR)/usr/sbin/ddclient
install -D -m 755 debian/ddclient.NetworkManager \
>
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 04:06:16 +, T o n g wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:26:22 +0200, Ross Gammon wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:29:37 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>>>
dh_install(1) is a program, not a target.
> install -m 755 ddclient \ $(DESTDIR)/usr/sbin/ddclient
>>
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM, T o n g wrote:
> Is it possible to separate gpg signing from package building?
Yes and it is planned to make that the default:
https://bugs.debian.org/733029
> Now I'm thinking, wouldn't it be nice I always build the package without
> gpg signing, and when fina
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/14/2014 12:26 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM, T o n g wrote:
>> Now I'm thinking, wouldn't it be nice I always build the package
>> without gpg signing, and when finally I tested everything working
>> fine, I sign it.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:31 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I understood the question as being not how to
> build without signing, but how to sign after building, without having to
> rebuild. I.e., always build without signing, then sign as a separate
> step once a build has prov
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> Appears I was wrong about maint-guide mentioning debsign, but it
> mentions how to build without signing:
I was wrong again, it does mention debsign:
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/build.en.html#pbuilder
--
bye,
pabs
https:/
Hi Daniel,
I'm not sure if I have enough time to familiarise myself with the package to
sponsor it but I had a quick look so here is my feedback and improvement
ideas:
Although debian/copyright is almost comprehensive it still misses some
organisations, notably "2007 INRIA" (AKA Dolphin?), "20
Thanks Dmitry for the close review and the valuable hints for further
improvements. I'll get through it, luckily there is still some time
until the package really gets AUTORM.
Greetings,
Daniel
On 14.07.2014 08:21, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I'm not sure if I have enough time to famili
34 matches
Mail list logo
