On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:44:31PM +0200, Jaime Robles wrote:
> transponderdefinitionwidget.cpp: In constructor `
>transponderDefinitionWidget::transponderDefinitionWidget(QWidget*, const
>char*, unsigned int)':
> transponderdefinitionwidget.cpp:46: error: invalid use of undefined type `
>
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:05:24PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> I'm using sourceforge's compile farm and I'd like to know how to use it to
> compile packages for unstable. They use woody. I also have an account on
> HP's testdrive systems.
Bad idea. Your packages' first point of entry is uns
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:53:42PM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> I and some friends of mine stated doing some packages for Debian. The
> packages are all OK, but there are some things that we would like to know:
> What are the options or alternatives that I can put on Section: of the
> fi
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:59:26AM +0200, Jaime Robles wrote:
> I have found part of the error...
> KPustButton (at kpushbutton.h), as you said below is in kdelibs4-dev package.
> The problem is that the file that should have the "#include "
> is automatically generated during building using "uic"
ove the .ex.
I suggest that instead of using newmaint as your bible, source a few
simple packages and look at how they do things.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgpSt7F67YqDB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t; /etc/resolv.conf
This could be determined based on ps ax | grep cardmgr or something. It
is not necessary to ask a debconf question about it, I think.
As for the others, I think they're ok, except that the notice should be
priority low.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgpTV9YdLj9mU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
; just missed it.
apt-get install devscripts
--
Joshua Kwan
pgpHY4qAPj0Em.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> (opensp-1.5release-3). The source (.dsc and .diff.gz) is fine, I don't need
> the binary.
Have you tried snapshot.debian.net? All you have to know is when that
version was updated, so long as that version was ever in the archive.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgpYIAq9CAN2c.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I digress; I suggest you take a smaller package (hey! adopt a few
orphaned or RFA'd packages.. *hint wmweather+ hint*) first so you can
learn the ropes of bug tracking and package building completely. Then
perhaps you can try a more enterprising venture, mozilla-calendarward.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp9qAb3jlUwS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ope maybe this can help you with your debian/rules wrangling with
regards to running configure.
Also watch out for the warnings that dpkg-source is giving you. Those
look rather ominous.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgpyX0AwdlQUM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
you need, I can post the whole file, but as mentioned there's no
> configure-stamp, dependency or target.
Maybe that could help. What about just the whole Debian source you're
working with? Then maybe we could get cooking.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgpJsfC6VM8Vh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
obably nothing did, so you can just
safely bump the Standards-Version.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp1nsrt9OVfa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
... of course, one could consider
> patching lintian, but for the moment I'll stick to getting fastdep done.
Geez, slow down! :P Today fastdep, tomorrow... the world?
--
Joshua Kwan
pgplioIVOJDy4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
cal machine; just FYI.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgpgwQejP1Dz9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
umes that
^^^
> were created by a cryptoapi (kerneli.org) module.
encrypted, but otherwise pretty good..
As for the util-linux incompatibility, a Replaces: is the first solution
that comes to mind..
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp1qSKq45iNc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
, nuke it from within debian/rules.
IMHO the best way because you don't mess with the upstream source quite as
much.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgpqbqRDOJUuA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
because I am getting the error, but not sure
> what the _right_ way to do this is?
The best way is to provide corrected versions of the header in the
package source, and change the affected files to include them instead of
the ones on the system.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgpDjovWJ8O3O.pgp
Description: PGP signature
hat bug (211995) with a subject: ITA: irssi -- IRC file distribution bot
nope,
$ echo "retitle 211995 ITA: iroffer -- IRC file distribution bot" |
mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hope it works out.
P.S. please wrap your mailer at 72 characters, thanks
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp3jc0xQ9n51.pgp
Description: PGP signature
usr/bin/additional.
>My advocate suggested a different solution; is it legal to write
> something
>like:
>
> .so /usr/share//additional.1
>
> in a man page ? What solution would be cleaner to adopt ?
Sure, why not? but maybe the section 1 isn't ne
> will only look for libgdbm.so when compiling dynamically."
This is because people do 'gcc -lgdbm' and not 'gcc
/usr/lib/libgdbm.so.3.0.0' in general.
> -Why is ld only looking for libgdm.so when it's compiled dynamically?
Because that's the simplest way of doing things :P
--
Joshua Kwan
pgptcdFYeR34Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200312/msg7.html
[2] http://nm.debian.org/gpg_offer.php
--
Joshua Kwan
pgpDxLGV1l9A7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
y 1:*, and so on.
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 11:00:31PM +0100, Roberto Cioffi wrote:
> It's a dockapp for windowmaker that shows acpi information read from
> proc filesystem.
How's this better than wmbattery which is already in the archive?
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
a large portion of
people with gigantic music collections from the user base of this
program :)
To put it in other words, it should (more or less) be a command line
version of easytag, which is available in the archive.
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
e config
script only seems to get run during the postinst.
How does apt determine whether to do a 'Preconfiguring packages...' or
not? I'm stumped. Another package of mine does get Preconfigured, but I
fail to see how it differs from ircd-hybrid.
Completely stumped,
--
Joshua Kw
sted a patch to #192923 - seems to work and you should
apply it I think.
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ably wouldn't justify
repacking.
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
nks
^D
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ected. I don't think owner existed until recently,
right?
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:50:16 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> You probably want this message sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
But if the disk is full no one will see the message...
--
Joshua Kwan
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:50:16 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> You probably want this message sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
But if the disk is full no one will see the message...
--
Joshua Kwan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
Hi all,
Using DH_COMPAT=2 in my rules and calling dh_shlibdeps -a.. however, it
does nothing! It creates a single substvars file if DH_COMPAT is unset.
I don't think this is default dh_shlibdeps behavior. My package is
multiple-binary. Right now i have just forgone dh_shlibdeps and I'm
using t
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 09:45:51PM +0100, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> This may be a stupid question, but why do you use such a low DH_COMPAT
> setting?
I read somewhere that it was good for multiple binary packages, but I
just read the debhelper manpage and I'm using DH_COMPAT=4 now. Still the
sam
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 05:37:09PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> At a guess you may not have any elf binaries installed into
> debian//; maybe you're installing into debian/tmp instead.
No, if you were watching #debian-devel you know what I did wrong :)
(ran shlibdeps/strip before dh_install.)
Re
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 04:32:56PM +0200, Hilko Bengen wrote:
> In previous versions of ulog-acctd, I solved the problem by shipping
> ipt_ULOG.h in the .diff, but my AM Andrew Suffield told me that this
> is an ugly hack -- and I really have to agree.
A slightly more elegant way is to bdep on dpa
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 09:30:11AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Which is what my package already does, but it does not even build with
> the account not present. I am very unsure about handling this.
Just kill the parts of the Makefile that insist on the chowning, and
after adding the user in postin
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:03:09AM +0200, francesco levorato wrote:
> i used the following script as suggested from the nm-guide to realize
> which packages the application i am going to configure is going to
> depend on:
Why not use dpkg-checkbuilddeps?
Regards
Josh
--
New PGP public key: 0x27
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:17:18AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that NMUs shouldn't close bugs themselves - reference the
> bug in the changelog, that's all well and good, but don't close the bug.
> Only the maintainer should close bugs. Tag all bugs you've fixed as being
> fixe
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 02:40:35PM +0200, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> >
> > cupsys | 1.1.19final-1 | testing | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64,
> > m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
> > cupsys | 1.1.19final-1 | unstable | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64,
> > m68k, m
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:43:11AM +0200, Tim Vandermeersch wrote:
> If you are interested you can take a look at the packages I made at the following
> URL:
> http://users.pandora.be/tim/debian/
It looks nice on first glance, i've never used the program though :)
> One last question: Do I need
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:02:38PM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> You also need to subcribe to various debian lists. In particular, you
> must subscribe to debian-devel.
Bzzt, only debian-devel-announce is required.
-Josh
--
"Notice that, written there, rather legibly, in the Baroque s
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:44:31PM +0200, Jaime Robles wrote:
> transponderdefinitionwidget.cpp: In constructor `
>transponderDefinitionWidget::transponderDefinitionWidget(QWidget*, const
>char*, unsigned int)':
> transponderdefinitionwidget.cpp:46: error: invalid use of undefined type `
>
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:05:24PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> I'm using sourceforge's compile farm and I'd like to know how to use it to
> compile packages for unstable. They use woody. I also have an account on
> HP's testdrive systems.
Bad idea. Your packages' first point of entry is uns
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:53:42PM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> I and some friends of mine stated doing some packages for Debian. The
> packages are all OK, but there are some things that we would like to know:
> What are the options or alternatives that I can put on Section: of the
> fi
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:59:26AM +0200, Jaime Robles wrote:
> I have found part of the error...
> KPustButton (at kpushbutton.h), as you said below is in kdelibs4-dev package.
> The problem is that the file that should have the "#include "
> is automatically generated during building using "uic"
ove the .ex.
I suggest that instead of using newmaint as your bible, source a few
simple packages and look at how they do things.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t; /etc/resolv.conf
This could be determined based on ps ax | grep cardmgr or something. It
is not necessary to ask a debconf question about it, I think.
As for the others, I think they're ok, except that the notice should be
priority low.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
; just missed it.
apt-get install devscripts
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> (opensp-1.5release-3). The source (.dsc and .diff.gz) is fine, I don't need
> the binary.
Have you tried snapshot.debian.net? All you have to know is when that
version was updated, so long as that version was ever in the archive.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I digress; I suggest you take a smaller package (hey! adopt a few
orphaned or RFA'd packages.. *hint wmweather+ hint*) first so you can
learn the ropes of bug tracking and package building completely. Then
perhaps you can try a more enterprising venture, mozilla-calendarward.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ope maybe this can help you with your debian/rules wrangling with
regards to running configure.
Also watch out for the warnings that dpkg-source is giving you. Those
look rather ominous.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
you need, I can post the whole file, but as mentioned there's no
> configure-stamp, dependency or target.
Maybe that could help. What about just the whole Debian source you're
working with? Then maybe we could get cooking.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
obably nothing did, so you can just
safely bump the Standards-Version.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
... of course, one could consider
> patching lintian, but for the moment I'll stick to getting fastdep done.
Geez, slow down! :P Today fastdep, tomorrow... the world?
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
cal machine; just FYI.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
umes that
^^^
> were created by a cryptoapi (kerneli.org) module.
encrypted, but otherwise pretty good..
As for the util-linux incompatibility, a Replaces: is the first solution
that comes to mind..
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
, nuke it from within debian/rules.
IMHO the best way because you don't mess with the upstream source quite as
much.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
because I am getting the error, but not sure
> what the _right_ way to do this is?
The best way is to provide corrected versions of the header in the
package source, and change the affected files to include them instead of
the ones on the system.
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
g
> (211995) with a subject: ITA: irssi -- IRC file distribution bot
nope,
$ echo "retitle 211995 ITA: iroffer -- IRC file distribution bot" |
mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hope it works out.
P.S. please wrap your mailer at 72 characters, thanks
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/bin/additional.
>My advocate suggested a different solution; is it legal to write something
>like:
>
> .so /usr/share//additional.1
>
> in a man page ? What solution would be cleaner to adopt ?
Sure, why not? but maybe the section 1 isn't needed...
--
> will only look for libgdbm.so when compiling dynamically."
This is because people do 'gcc -lgdbm' and not 'gcc
/usr/lib/libgdbm.so.3.0.0' in general.
> -Why is ld only looking for libgdm.so when it's compiled dynamically?
Because that's the simplest way of doing things :P
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200312/msg7.html
[2] http://nm.debian.org/gpg_offer.php
--
Joshua Kwan
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
y 1:*, and so on.
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 11:00:31PM +0100, Roberto Cioffi wrote:
> It's a dockapp for windowmaker that shows acpi information read from
> proc filesystem.
How's this better than wmbattery which is already in the archive?
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
a large portion of
people with gigantic music collections from the user base of this
program :)
To put it in other words, it should (more or less) be a command line
version of easytag, which is available in the archive.
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
e config
script only seems to get run during the postinst.
How does apt determine whether to do a 'Preconfiguring packages...' or
not? I'm stumped. Another package of mine does get Preconfigured, but I
fail to see how it differs from ircd-hybrid.
Completely stumped,
--
Joshua Kw
sted a patch to #192923 - seems to work and you should
apply it I think.
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ably wouldn't justify
repacking.
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
nks
^D
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ected. I don't think owner existed until recently,
right?
--
Joshua Kwan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi all,
Using DH_COMPAT=2 in my rules and calling dh_shlibdeps -a.. however, it
does nothing! It creates a single substvars file if DH_COMPAT is unset.
I don't think this is default dh_shlibdeps behavior. My package is
multiple-binary. Right now i have just forgone dh_shlibdeps and I'm
using t
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 09:45:51PM +0100, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> This may be a stupid question, but why do you use such a low DH_COMPAT
> setting?
I read somewhere that it was good for multiple binary packages, but I
just read the debhelper manpage and I'm using DH_COMPAT=4 now. Still the
sam
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 05:37:09PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> At a guess you may not have any elf binaries installed into
> debian//; maybe you're installing into debian/tmp instead.
No, if you were watching #debian-devel you know what I did wrong :)
(ran shlibdeps/strip before dh_install.)
Re
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 04:32:56PM +0200, Hilko Bengen wrote:
> In previous versions of ulog-acctd, I solved the problem by shipping
> ipt_ULOG.h in the .diff, but my AM Andrew Suffield told me that this
> is an ugly hack -- and I really have to agree.
A slightly more elegant way is to bdep on dpa
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 12:42:12AM +0100, Matthew Newton wrote:
> How would I convert a "Debian native" package into a "normal" one (having
> used dh_make to produce the original "native" package)?
Best way is to plop the original tarball below your build directory as
sourcepackagename_upstreamve
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 01:13:02PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 02:58:16PM +0100, Pete Ryland wrote:
>
> > I get this same error with a .so symlink in a -dev package, which is clearly
> > architecture-independent and definitely belongs in the -dev under /usr/lib/.
>
> Wh
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 07:31:53AM +0200, Aaron Isotton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm the maintainer of sitemap, and I've got an update. It is lintian
> and linda clean, and I don't believe it's ready for upload. It's
> available at
um, deja vu? and why do you not think it's ready for upload?
Regards,
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 12:55:50PM -0400, Anthony Hurd wrote:
> I plan to go get wasted tomorrow night,
> burn down a few buildings, and raise some
> heck. Anyone want to join me?
Where do you live?
-Josh
--
New PGP public key: 0x27AFC3EE
pgpZa4YY3EFcd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 08:11:22PM +0200, Tobias Toedter wrote:
> qbrew uses a configure script and compiles nearly out of the box -- so as an
> experienced developer, you shouldn't have any difficulties in packaging
^^^
> yourse
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 04:09:26PM +0530, Ganesan R wrote:
> I have Bug #181453 (binary-all packages built in binary-arch rules target)
> against my package (OpenSLP). I tried using the example in
> /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debianm but ran into some trouble. Before I
> spend more time on this
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 06:35:28PM -0500, EspeonEefi wrote:
> Did you get this from the line in the topic of #debian @
> irc.freenode.net? I jumped as well at first, but the apt that's MIA is
> the bot in that channel, not the program in sid, I think.
This is true. "use dpkg for now" means use t
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:18:54PM +1000, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> So the question is, is it permissable to put such a basic test of a
> library into the rules file that gets executed as part of the build
> process? If so, are there any guidelines anywhere as to how one might
> go about doing
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 06:08:06PM -0400, Morgon Kanter wrote:
> It seems that g++ 3.2 is the new default compiler for testing (as
> evidenced by the recent update of the dependencies for the dummy package
> "gcc"). Is there going to be a time when all the C++ libraries are going
> to be recompi
On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 07:34:48PM +0200, Holger Kubiak wrote:
> I want to package a tool. In a shell-script I need access to a hostname
> belonging to a given IP. If the package host is installed I get:
[snip]
A possibility is to use perl, it has a easily accessible gethostbyname
implementation.
On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 11:38:04AM +0300, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> I couldn't find any documentation about different package urgencies. Should
> this package be something else than "low" because it fixes an Important bug?
That would go under 'low', I think, and the tip is somewhere in devref,
IIRC.
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 09:30:11AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Which is what my package already does, but it does not even build with
> the account not present. I am very unsure about handling this.
Just kill the parts of the Makefile that insist on the chowning, and
after adding the user in postin
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:03:09AM +0200, francesco levorato wrote:
> i used the following script as suggested from the nm-guide to realize
> which packages the application i am going to configure is going to
> depend on:
Why not use dpkg-checkbuilddeps?
Regards
Josh
--
New PGP public key: 0x27
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:17:18AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that NMUs shouldn't close bugs themselves - reference the
> bug in the changelog, that's all well and good, but don't close the bug.
> Only the maintainer should close bugs. Tag all bugs you've fixed as being
> fixe
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 02:40:35PM +0200, Johannes Rohr wrote:
> >
> > cupsys | 1.1.19final-1 | testing | source, alpha, arm, hppa,
> > i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
> > cupsys | 1.1.19final-1 | unstable | source, alpha, arm, hppa,
> > i386, ia64, m68k, m
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:43:11AM +0200, Tim Vandermeersch wrote:
> If you are interested you can take a look at the packages I made at the
> following URL:
> http://users.pandora.be/tim/debian/
It looks nice on first glance, i've never used the program though :)
> One last question: Do I need
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:02:38PM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> You also need to subcribe to various debian lists. In particular, you
> must subscribe to debian-devel.
Bzzt, only debian-devel-announce is required.
-Josh
--
"Notice that, written there, rather legibly, in the Baroque s
91 matches
Mail list logo
