On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 01:01:30PM -0500, Barry deFreese wrote:
> Barry deFreese wrote:
>> I am CC'ing Debian QA because this fixes an RC bug and the maintainer may
>> be MIA.
>>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.2.1-4.1
>> of my package "zynaddsubfx".
>
> OK, I have uploaded ano
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:19:23AM +0100, Richard van Roy wrote:
> I'm a programmer with at least abdicate understanding of C++ and a long
> time Debian user. At the moment I have a lot of free time and I wish to
> spent this productively by aiding Debian in development.
Great, welcome. :-)
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 07:35:48PM +, tim hall wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> Its in no way important, not even near to it. Its priority extra, so
>> lowest possible priority.
>
> Sorry, wrong terminology. It's a very useful multimedia application, which
> many people use and would expect to
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 01:20:45AM +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> If I add findstring like:
> @if [ -f $(GRADM_PAM) ] ; then \
> echo "Installing gradm_pam..." ; \
> $(INSTALL) -m 4755 $(GRADM_PAM) $(DESTDIR)/sbin ; \
> ifeq (,$(findstring nostrip,$(DEB_B
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:37:36PM -0500, Barry deFreese wrote:
> Hi folks,
Hi Barry, :-)
> I've uploaded a version of imlib that fixes an important and RC bug. If
> someone has time to review/sponsor.
I'll try to have a look at it tomorrow.
Thanks,
Bas
--
I encourage people to send encryp
Hi,
Sorry for the delay. I'll have a look at these, hopefully today. If
anyone is faster, don't wait for me, though. ;-)
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 10:04:39PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:0.4.1-1
> of my package "qterm".
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:08
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:25:15PM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "zerofree".
I have several other packages waiting for me at the moment, so I'm
afraid I can't do that (at least not soon).
> Note that I have set the Dm-Upload-Allowed field. This pac
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:46:31PM +0100, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008 16:30 schrieb Jean Parpaillon:
> > Hi,
> > I intend to package HPL benchmarks. Copyright file contains the
> > following statements:
> > --
> > 1. Redistributions of source
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:29AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target"
> > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", not onl
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:19:36PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:29AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Always re-running autoconf and automake would increase the number of
> >> FTBFS
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 05:40:58PM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target"
> > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", not only
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 02:17:54PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Montag, den 11.02.2008, 10:54 +0100 schrieb David Paleino:
> > Il giorno Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:53:48 +0100
> > Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> >
> > > I suggest to mandate &quo
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 03:48:20PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Quoting the Debian Policy, section 4.9 Main building script:
> > debian/rules[1]
> >
> >> clean
> >>
> >> This must undo any effects that the build and binary targets may
> >> have h
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:43:52PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:53:48AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > I suggest to mandate "remove all generated files in the clean target"
> > (formulated in a way which includes "generated by upstream", n
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:02:41PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A workaround could be to not regenerate the files. This is how it is
> > usually done now. IMO that is incorrect, because the compiler for every
> > generated f
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:07:59PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:53:48AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > This is not true if you simply build the whole package from source.
> > That is, run autotools during build, remove all generated files,
> >
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:15:20AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Autoconf is pretty stable,
>
> This has not been the experience of many of us. I haven't had a lot of
> trouble fixing things for newer releases of Autoco
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:29:59PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:08:47PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
> > The fact that there exist packages which work properly without
> > recompiling from source doesn't mean it's a good default. IMO the
>
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:30:42PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> Il giorno Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:59:51 -0500
> Andres Mejia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
>
> > On Sunday 17 February 2008 11:37:54 am David Paleino wrote:
> >
> > > Why not using $(CURDIR)? It should give you the dir where debian/ is
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:30:32AM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 17.02.2008, 23:58 +0100 schrieb Bas Wijnen:
>
> [..]
> > The get-orig-source target specifies that it must work from anywhere.
>
> Where do you read this? The policy says, that it "[.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:47:41PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:55:03PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:29:59PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > If you're willing to do things by forcing a particular version in the
> > &g
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:39:29PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> But honestly, I think our job is to deliver full source and binaries.
> I _don't_ think we necessarily have to exercise every bit of the
> source (e.g. the .am files) on every build. In fact, my primary
> objections to the java exampl
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:14:24PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Then I still don't understand your statement above. What is the thing
> > that you prefer to check outside the normal build process?
>
> That we can regenerate the autotools products.
I answered this in another reply. Sorry for not
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:22:04PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:50:23AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > As a sidestep, I think this target may actually be legally required for
> > GPL (at least 2 and 3) licenced code. They say
> >
> > For a
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:00:55PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> It's not just the computing resources required that concern me, it's
> also the effort involved in doing it and the disruption that could be
> caused, especially if we were to do things like changing autotools
> versions underneath the p
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 04:23:03PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> is there any procedure to follow in case one needs to revoke his GPG
> key (thus creating a new one)?
>
> I mean, I have some packages in Debian, which are signed by my current
> key (0x1392B174).
Packages in Debian are signed by a
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 05:24:42PM +0100, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> I'd like to convert my very little packages to the
> machine-interpretable debian/copyright format described on the Wiki.
Good idea. :-)
> In my packages (but I think that this applies to many others) I have
> some very little
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 01:34:39PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 12:37 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > On 2008-03-05, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> of course is changing SONAMEs in a NMU appropriate if it is appropriate.
> > >
> > > That equates to a host
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 10:31:40PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote:
> lunar-applet is chinese calendar applet for gnome environment. it's
> version is 2.0-1 in this upload(in sid it's 1.8)
>
> in lunar-applet 2.0, the library part is separated to liblunar by upstream.
I'll look at lunar-applet after
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 09:35:53PM +1000, David Schulberg wrote:
> So how can I actually check in my initscript that it is running during
> the installation process so I can skip the start of my service at that
> time?
Using debhelper I'm not sure if that's possible at all. I would not
consi
Hello again,
I should have been much faster with this, but better late than never I
guess...
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:43:09PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - The library version is complex. This is prob
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:43:05PM +0800, LI Daobing (李道兵) wrote:
> a new version 1.0.0-1 uploaded to mentors.debian.net
Looks good, I uploaded it. Please let me know when it passes NEW, so
the new lunar-applet can be uploaded as well.
Thanks,
Bas
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail
Hi,
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 03:22:52PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> I am working through the bugs of glademm which I recently adopted. There
> are some 6-7 years old Bugs that are not reproducible any more while
> they clearly have existed once.
>
> I guess simply closing them with an notice a
Hello,
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 08:59:31AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > You probably want a custom regex in the -i option to dpkg-source.
> > Using debuild and DEBUILD_DPKG_BUILDPACKAGE_OPTS in ~/.devscripts is a
> > good way to prevent the need to add it to the dpkg-buildpackage
> > command-
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 09:32:04PM +0800, LI Daobing (李道兵) wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I got a question from the upstream, the source tarball contains GPL
> and LGPL code, and this source tarball can generate several packages.
> can I release one package in GPL and another in LGPL?
Yes, because th
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 06:41:37PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> If there are binary packages which build solely from LGPL sources (they
> do not use any GPL-only sources), those packages can be licensed as
> LGPL.
Sorry for replying to my own mail, but I was writing confusing things.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:06:27AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> In License, you have:
> LGPL-2+ can also be treated as version 2.1 of GNU Lesser General Public
> License. On Debian systems, the complete text may be found in
> /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1.
>
> LGPL-2+ can also be treated as ve
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:05:25PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi Bas,
Hi,
> I may have made confusing statement for casual observer...
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 01:09:02PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:06:27AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> >
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 09:44:52PM +0200, Jeffrey Ratcliffe wrote:
> >> I've tried using --as-needed, but ocropus then FTBFS.
>
> http://paste.debian.net/15317/
--as-needed will let the linker throw away all symbols that aren't used.
It always does this when linking static libraries. That's why
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:17:12AM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> One possible alteration would be (with minimal changes to the original
> text)
>
> The run-time library package should include the symbolic link to the
> shared libraries that| |would have normally been created by ldconfig.
like that gets
pretty unreadable, because it's so full of stuff, but the fact that the
compiler can find things there is worth it. However, as it won't find object
files there (unless specifically pointed to it), putting them there anyway
would just be obscure IMO.
However, IANADD, so I
ny reason to do so, as dpkg-buildpackage doesn't need it. So I
would just unzip, then tar -czf, and name it .orig.tar.gz.
Hope this helps,
Bas Wijnen
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send
study how the program
works, and adapt it to your needs". Therefore none of my sources.lists have
contrib in them. I don't want to use a program, just to find that I cannot
reasonably modify it when I feel the need to do so.
Bye,
Bas Wijnen
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 01:41:48PM -0
Hello mentors,
I have some packages which use autotools. I thought it would be good to
compile as much as possible, so it is clear all the sources are correct. That
means including autoconf, of course.
However, linda doesn't agree with that:
W: gfpoken; Package Build-Depends on automake* or aut
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 02:12:57AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:15:41AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > I have some packages which use autotools. I thought it would be good to
> > compile as much as possible, so it is clear all the sources are corr
te a script which preseeds debconf so it doesn't ask the
questions. Your package should definitely not block questions in other
packages, as there may be people who don't like your defaults and want to
answer those questions. And in general, those are not your package's
questions, so
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 10:46:34PM +0200, Sandro Dentella wrote:
> > I may be missing the problem, but as far as I understand it you want B, C,
> > and D to have Depends: A. If they don't have it and cannot be used
> > without A, file a bug report. If they can also be used without A then you
>
>
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:05:32PM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> > I am a big fan of not using debconf/postinst for any of this.
So am I. Definitely not postinst: that should be without interruption. The
install process of Debian asks questions directly after downloading them.
After the que
o now?
Get the icons from somewhere under the LGPL. Contacting the author about it
would be nice, but the good thing about the (L)GPL is that it's not actually
needed in order to redistribute the material.
IANAL, TINLA.
Greetings,
Bas Wijnen
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 03:06:11PM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> Since my packages are "unofficial" I want them to be built for sarge and
> sid (i use pbuilder for that), but in the same upstream version; is that
> allowed by the policy. What i have to do?
Policy is only about the official D
ood shape, do you have any
> advise on finding a package sponser? Any volunteers.
I'm not a DD yet, so I can't help you there.
Bye,
Bas Wijnen
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Plea
fore doing
it).
Also write a comment in the bug report about the situation, explicitly saying
it shouldn't be removed, because you want to adopt it.
Bye,
Bas Wijnen
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:26:02PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 08-Sep-2005, Stan Vasilyev wrote:
> > I am wondering if anyone is willing to sponsor my work on some of
> > the orphaned packages I listed below.
>
> Prospective sponsors will need to know that you've read the FAQ and
> addressed its
Hi,
When I unpack debian packages, they have the following structure:
debian-file
\- control.tar.gz
\- data.tar.gz
\- debian-version
In control.tar.gz are the postinst, etc. files, in data.tar.gz are all the
"normal" files. debian-version is just a number.
To see this, u
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 03:05:47PM +0200, Giuseppe Martino wrote:
> New package on: http://dakordhost.homelinux.org/~denever/aldo_debian
I have two things to say about this:
- debian/ should not be in the orig.tar.gz, but only in the diff.gz. See [1].
- Your diff.gz is huge, but it seems to conta
r problem. :-)
> Re: Giuseppe Martino in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > I have two things to say about this:
> > > - debian/ should not be in the orig.tar.gz, but only in the diff.gz. See
> > > [1].
>
> The .orig.tar.gz should be identical to the upstream tar
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:14:57PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Bas Wijnen in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Please provide an updated upstream tarball.
> > >
> > > This will allow you to drop the build-dependency on the autotools,
> > > w
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 05:12:06PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-15 10:07]:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > > I buy Sven's arguments in favor of adding -nonfree. I would also strip
> > > the
> > > "lib" at t
ead.
Lots of them. Ppp connections and loopback for example.
Bye,
Bas Wijnen
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
in the message body, not as
ffort? :-)
Since the scripts aren't very large, I included the non-debug version as an
attachment.
Thanks,
Bas Wijnen
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mail
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 04:38:10PM +0200, Joost van Baal wrote:
> Hoi Bas,
Hi,
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 04:23:22PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> >
> > In order to easily build Debian packages, I wrote a script called mkdeb.
>
> >
> > Anyway, the question I ha
ream's latest release.
> I was thinking just to have the gtk2 port inside diff.gz as another
> Debian source hack, probably I'll go that way.
With upstream MIA but need for them anyway (since there is a large diff.gz),
it may also be an option to fork the code and become upstream yourself
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:51:44PM +0200, Vedran Fura? wrote:
> Is it OK to have more than debian directory (and files under it) in
> package_version-rev.diff.gz? I have a lot of other diffs outside debian/
> (in aclocal.m4, Makefile.in,...). The problem is that after I run
> ./configure and then m
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 04:04:12PM -0300, Jose Carlos do Nascimento wrote:
> Hi, Roberto
>
> But this package can be put in non-free ?
No. The code links to non-free stuff, and doesn't have an exception for that
in the license. Distribution of binaries (modified or not) is only allowed if
they
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:22:43PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Sorry, but I have to point out that your recommendation describes the
> very opposite of Debian best packaging practices.
>
> - Basically, the only reason to repackage upstream is to avoid license
> problems. Dropping unneccessar
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 10:22:43AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> /opt/ is okay, but maybe you should provide the mechanism by which a
> local admin can change the installation root.
>
> FHS:
>
>Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or
>delete software installed
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 01:18:12AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> A chroot is a nice solution - I use it for many things.
>
> the program 'debootstrap' can help you building a chroot.
>
> just:
> mkdir sid-chroot
> sudo debootstrap sid sid-chroot http://yournearestmirror.
> sudo chroot sidchroot
I
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:59:49PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > So you suggest that I do not repack source and do not add overrides ?
> >
> > http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
> > about lintian in the serious violations-part
> > "Sometimes there are valid reasons, but then you should e
ll be removed at package purge. That way I would be
sure debhelper can do all its magic, and I would be more sure that the Right
Thing(tm) is done.
What is the usual way to solve this situation?
Thanks,
Bas Wijnen
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 05:45:43PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> It's of course clear that any script in the path should be executable.
> But if a script is in /usr/share/somewhere, and meant to be used as a
> "library", it could be that upstream wants to allow both to source and
> to execute it.
>
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 10:21:46AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 December 2005 18:41, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > If it is meant to be executed, it should be executable.
> agreed
>
> > If it is not, it should not have the shebang line.
>
>
> For most up-to-date packages re. autotools, this is just a call to
> autoreconf.
autoreconf has the annoying property of preferring automake 1.4 if it is
installed. So you need to set the environment to the proper versions for it
to work. I prefer directly calling the correct version of it.
uld somehow sign your own archive and add your public key to apt's
keyring (I'm guessing it's in /usr/share/keyrings or /usr/share/apt). I
haven't done anything like that though, but I suppose the internet can tell
you a bit more. :-)
Bye,
Bas Wijnen
--
I encourage people to se
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 07:30:22PM -0800, Stan Vasilyev wrote:
> From the last e-mail I got from Thierry it looks like he wants to make a
> compromise. Since I annoyed him so much with my e-mails, he proposed to start
> releasing Xdialog in two versions: Xdialog-version.tar.bz2 file with debian
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:19:08PM +, Martin Meredith wrote:
> I do know of this - but looking for a solution for now so I dont have to go
> down that road unless absolutely neccesary :d (for example - the lsdiff |
> touch -r)
Do I understand correctly that you want to avoid running autom
autotools. Or else
I want to be convinced that that's not going to happen. ;-)
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:16:08AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2006, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> > Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > Many problems solve themselves when you compile
Hello,
After bug report #339387, I added a postinst file to the dummy package
gnocatan-meta-server, which does
update-rc.d gnocatan-meta-server remove &>/dev/null || true
in order to get rid of the links which were created by the previous
(non-dummy) version of the package.
However, this didn't s
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:28:39AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Just a word of caution here: If the administrator has modified the
> > > file, you should not rename or move it, as they may know better
> > >
Hello mentors,
In the games team, SDLjump was mentioned as a candidate for the graphical
installer. However, it was not packaged yet. So I've done that (but left out
the udeb-parts for now). I'm looking for a sponsor to check and upload the
package.
Package: sdljump
Section: games
License: GPL
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:42:54PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> * Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060212 12:08]:
> > .
> > Home page: http://sdljump.sourceforge.net
>
> Pointing to [1] I would suggest to change that to ".\n Homepage:"
Thanks, fi
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:42:26PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> So, why run aclocal and delete all those files unnecesarily? Even
> though the package is exactly the same as with the simpler rules, it
> smells like a source of bugs to me. Like if in the future aclocal-1.9
> stops being pre
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:43:43PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:42:26PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > On 2/12/06, Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -$(MAKE) maintainer-clean
> > rm -f config.guess config.sub configure
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:16:34AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:42:26PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > Finally, the ELF file uses only 68KB, while the whole package uses 1,5
> > MB of arch-independent files. It certainly looks as a candidate for
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:19:30PM +0200, Eddy Petri?or wrote:
> grep -r -e "\s*#include\s\s*<" . |sort -u
At least gcc doesn't have a problem with anything which matches
'^\s*#\s*include\s*<'
So that may be a better expression.
Thanks,
Bas Wijnen
--
I encoura
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Cedric BRINER wrote:
> And I still have some questions
>
> - Do you know in which sections shall I put this package which is related
> to python, astronomy ? (how should I proceed to know in which section to
> put it)
Programs which happen to be writte
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 01:42:18PM +0100, Cedric BRINER wrote:
> the error that I've mentionned in my previous email, was that after making a
> cd python-cfitsio-0.99.2/
> fakeroot debian/rules binary
> fakeroot debian/rules clean
> cd ..
> dpkg-source -b python-cfitsio-0.99.2
> and that I was havi
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 07:18:31PM +0200, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:52:04AM +1100, skaller wrote:
> Thank you for this explanation. Although I still have some issues with
> it, it seems I should build infrastructure for building source packages.
> (Earlier, one just
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:12:45PM +0200, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:57:38PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > Having the debian/ directory under version control is useful. But it
> > shouldn't be included in the tarball when you run "make dist&quo
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 04:55:40PM +, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:50:42PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:03:06 -0500
> > Removed the useless scripts. Files are at the same place:
> >
> > http://www.kiyuko.org/pool/beef_0.0.3.orig.tar.gz
> > ht
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:56:55PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> The package has never been in Debian, and even if it had, no one would want
> to update it just because of a change in the mantainer scripts: the content
> of the package is exactly the same.
If you would upload it while the previ
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:41:59PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > * W: The program is licensed under GPL version 2.
>
> Will not fix. From the Policy, section 12.5:
>
> "Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic license,
> the GNU GPL, and the GNU LGPL should re
such architecture-independent packages. Not
that it matters much if you don't upload them to the archive. :-)
I hope this answers your question. If not, please rephrase it. ;-)
Thanks,
Bas Wijnen
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have probl
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 02:04:32PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > 3. Version differences: This is a legitamate gripe. The autotools don't
> > work nearly as wel as they could when developers
> > are using different versions. However, I see no way to easilly fix this.
They could have done more f
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:21:35AM +0100, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> Am Montag, 13. M?rz 2006 02:28 schrieb Joe Smith:
> > "Rainer Dorsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I tried to package cpuinfo but it seems that the files in debian/tmp di
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 11:18:15AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > > If that is the case, install to to debian/ (replacing
> > > > > package with the name of the binary package) instead of debian/tmp.
> > >
> > > When using debhelper, dh_install will do that for you sortof
> > > automatically.
oing to help me".
You can add a co-maintainer by putting his name (and e-mail) in the
"Uploaders:" field in debian/control. The result of that is that uploads
which have him as the changelog author will not be considered NMUs.
Thanks,
Bas Wijnen
--
I encourage people to send en
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 10:50:38AM +0200, Kari Pahula wrote:
> Restarting crossfire-server will cause any remote players to have their
> connection abrubtly broken and to lose any progress that they've had since
> their logon. That's not quite what I'd call a smooth upgrade.
I don't know if you a
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:52:14PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Xdialog --title "sampleprogi" --screen-center --no-cancel --wrap \
> --backtitle "Here a text which show $FOO BAR" --fixed-font \
> --textbox $FILE 30 $DLGW
>
> this is working fine, but I want the Backtitle i18n.
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 03:39:34PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > What string should eval_gettext see as its argument? You need to make sure
> > that it gets that.
>
> "Here a text which show \$FOO BAR"
I'll assume you mean literally that, without the double quotes. In that case,
yo
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:46:06AM -0600, Joseph Smidt wrote:
> However I am having trouble writing the rules file. First, there is
> no 'make clean' aor 'make distclean' that initially works. You have to
> configure one like 'make -f client.mk distclean build'. After typing that
> command
1 - 100 of 195 matches
Mail list logo
