Hi,
I was trying to move a package (iausofa-c) from main to non-free with a
new version. In the developers reference [1], the according paragraph is
5.9.1:
> If you need to change the section for one of your packages, change
> the package control information to place the package in the desired
>
Hi,
after I moved one of my packages (iausofa-c) from main to non-free, I
had for some time the problem that the source still appeared in
main. This, however, was solved "somehow" without any notice.
However, now I get the migration "excuse" [1] "Section:
non-free/science". What does this mean? T
Hi,
I am packaging some older software (eso-midas, [1]) that installs
everything into a common directory (f.e. /usr/lib/eso-midas/). However,
the FHS requires that this should be split between /usr/share/ and
/usr/lib//. In the majority of cases, this could be done
automatically by recognizing the
Bartosz Feński writes:
>> I am packaging some older software (eso-midas, [1]) that installs
>> everything into a common directory (f.e. /usr/lib/eso-midas/). However,
>> the FHS requires that this should be split between /usr/share/ and
>> /usr/lib//. In the majority of cases, this could be done
>
Osamu Aoki writes:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 08:47:41PM +0100, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr wrote:
>> Bartosz Feński writes:
>> >> I am packaging some older software (eso-midas, [1]) that installs
>> >> everything into a common directory (f.e. /usr/lib/eso-midas/). However,
Bartosz Feński writes:
> W dniu 09.03.2014 16:55, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr pisze:
>> Osamu Aoki writes:
>>> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 08:47:41PM +0100, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr wrote:
>>>> Bartosz Feński writes:
>>>>>> I am packaging some older software (eso-midas, [1
Thibaut Paumard writes:
> Le 08/03/2014 14:02, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am packaging some older software (eso-midas, [1]) that installs
>> everything into a common directory (f.e. /usr/lib/eso-midas/). However,
>> the FHS requires that this should
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 02:02:48PM +0100, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr wrote:
>> I am packaging some older software (eso-midas, [1]) that installs
>> everything into a common directory (f.e. /usr/lib/eso-midas/). However,
>> the FHS requires that this should
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:54:44AM +0100, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr wrote:
>> >> I am packaging some older software (eso-midas, [1]) that installs
>> >> everything into a common directory (f.e. /usr/lib/eso-midas/). However,
>> >> the
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:39:22AM +0100, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr wrote:
>> >> >> I am packaging some older software (eso-midas, [1]) that installs
>> >> >> everything into a common directory (f.e. /usr/lib/eso-midas/). However,
>&g
Hi,
this is already in discussion within a bug (#744280); however I think it
is good to have the discussion a bit more general.
I have a source package (cpl-plugin-xsh) that creates three binary
packages:
cpl-plugin-xsh (the arch dependent binary)
cpl-plugin-xsh-doc (the arch independent documen
Hi Thorsten,
Thorsten Alteholz writes:
> your debian/copyright needs some additions:
> install/unix/systems/Cygwin/values.h is LGPL
> gui/GraphLib/libsrc/uimxR5/include/msg.h is some Apple license
> libsrc/readline/* is GPL1+
>
> gui/GraphLib/DESCRIPTION has some additional license information
Hi,
I've uploaded a package to contrib [1], that needs a non-free package
(pgplot5) as build dependency. While it builds nicely on my local
pbuilder (after adding non-free), it fails to build on the buildds [2].
Is there a special thingy that I missed when I specified the dependency?
Also, I am
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr , 2014-08-14, 09:46:
>> I've uploaded a package to contrib [1], that needs a non-free package
>> (pgplot5) as build dependency. While it builds nicely on my local pbuilder
>> (after adding non-free), it fails to build on the bu
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr , 2014-08-14, 10:08:
>>>> I've uploaded a package to contrib [1], that needs a non-free package
>>>> (pgplot5) as build dependency. While it builds nicely on my local pbuilder
>>>> (after adding non-free), it fails
Ansgar Burchardt writes:
> As I don't really care about Priority and Section for source packages, I
> haven't thought further about this and dak currently uses misc:extra for
> all of them.
Policy, 5.6.6: Priority
| This field represents how important it is that the user have the
| package insta
Russ Allbery writes:
> debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr) writes:
>> Ansgar Burchardt writes:
>
>>> As I don't really care about Priority and Section for source packages, I
>>> haven't thought further about this and dak currently uses misc:extra
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> Initial priorities are set by the ftpmaster that accepted the package from
> NEW. They may, or may not match the ones in the package's priority field.
>
> i.e. that field is an _advisory_ field.
This is not what is in the policy. The policy says, that it is
One more question:
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr , 2014-08-14, 09:46:
>> I've uploaded a package to contrib [1], that needs a non-free package
>> (pgplot5) as build dependency. While it builds nicely on my local pbuilder
>> (after adding non-free), it fails
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr , 2014-08-14, 19:49:
>>> i386 packages can be built in a chroot. For anything else, you can
>>> ask on a porters' mailing list[0]; although it might not be worth
>>> the effort.
>>
>> Since I am not a DD yet, this
Jakub Wilk writes:
> [Out of curiosity, is there a reason your name in the From field is
> written in a mixture of Latin and Cyrillic scripts?]
That is my usenet-setup; it just makes it difficult do google my
postings by my name while the name is still human-readable.
> * Оlе Ѕtrеісh
21 matches
Mail list logo
