Depricating a library

Hello, Upstram of qtecasound has depricated libqtecasound, and the only application which depended upon libqtecasound (qtecasound, and ecawave) no longer need the library. How would I handle this situation smoothly? Any ideas? Would I need to make an empty package of libqtecasound to ensure

Re: Depricating a library

Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit > If you want to provide further hints, upload a final version containing > "you can remove me without ill effects" in the description. I think I would just remove the package, since the package has only entered unstable, and not on testin

Re: manual how to create a lib-package

Nikolaus Regnat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit > I'm searching for a manual (like New Maintainers' Guide) how to craete a > package from a libary. Is there anything like that? As far as I know, the answer is "No", and I think we need one too. You can see some of it in the debian-policy.

Re: Making multiple packages from source.

nstall `opt-downgrade --non-optimised` > (and the script will insert the right version numbers). Er.. sounds hacky. Anyway, I was trying to do this kind of stuff, but I have not gone too far. I stopped at trying to set up a buildd for athlon (I have effectively stopped at making athlon-build

Re: multiple binary package HOWTO

several binary versions. I think it involves (mkdir BUILD; cd BUILD; ../configure ) kind of thing... regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: Best way to specify which GCC to use

is currently seen as a bad idea to do this on ia64. The details are not available to me. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA

Re: backwards compatibility with stable

l when I can't work it out. Don't use debhelper, or keep your debhelper compatibility level at "2" or less, because debhelper v3 was not available in potato. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D

Re: Conditional use of debconf

annoying to see too many notes. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe"

Re: Include bison-generated files in package?

something else I should do? I'd recommend build depending on bison, and building it. Having intermediate files included in the distribution is rather wrong, and I think the preferred source format for editing is the bison source, not the bison-generated source. regards, junichi --

Re: request for a sponsor

ards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Looking for a sponsor

It's > almost, but not quite, lintian clean; it produces one error --- Have you considered asking the upstream to change the license ? regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7

Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh

> It is not for a normal user.) Packaging of setuid programs is very discouraged for first-time packagers. Are you sure you want to do that ? regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3

Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh

stream ? My personal feeling is that I don't like large diffs, and Debian-specific modifications. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t

Re: non-developer adopting an orphaned package

ry and put some trace of work in the BTS. It is pretty difficult to see if the person is doing anything useful. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- To UNSU

Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh

tems. > struct.h says: > | #ifndef MAXPATHLEN > | # define MAXPATHLEN 1024 > | #endif [everything else dropped] regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- To

Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh

hing more than -O2 has problems on some architectures, and it is not advisable to use anything more than -O2 unless you know what you are doing. > > o are you sending the mods to the upstream ? / have you > > contacted the upstream ? > Not yet. Please do. Reducing the -Wall warning

Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh

in debian/rules. I think all it does is set DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="...", unset, and then run debuild. But that is talking about shell. Try testing this snippet: muha.sh: #!/bin/sh echo $MUHA and on the command-line run: $ MUHA="fuu" muha.sh fuu $ MUHA="fuu" &a

Re: gphoto2 (WAS: RE: including full source code in upload)

. > > And perhaps a doc package but it would be really small. I might be missing something, but what is the soname for libgphoto2 ? regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92

Re: gphoto2 (WAS: RE: including full source code in upload)

/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2.0.0 or something similar libgphoto2-dev Package would probably contain /usr/lib/libgphoto.so which is a symlink to /usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2, and etc. etc. etc. The soname is the number "2" in this case (but I have not looked at libgphoto2 to check) regards,

Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh

BLE to the script ? I've accompanied myself with a testing script to check that behavior as well, have you tried running it? > Can you please explain me what I'm missing ? That's what I want to know too. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa

Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh

ified otherwise in the command-line. Maybe he was just talking about shell constructs. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Buildd rejected my Build-depends:

e my package ok both for the former > and the newer version of the ocaml package. If that is the case, it should be enough to specify ocaml (>= version) with high-enough version number (which includes the previous camlp4). At least from the information given from your mail. regards,

Re: Bug#136374: sbuild: /etc/sbuild.conf should be a conffile

build, and /etc/sbuild should have been somewhere like /usr/share/sbuild/sbuild.default.conf. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Re: Library packaging

owitz-config in diff.gz? Binary package names are incorrect, name them "lib"mowitz0 and "lib"mowitz-dev The source package name is fine. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423

Re: Library packaging

;s the case, I also have doubts whether it should be called libmowitz"0" Are you sure of the soname version number? regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4

Re: Library packaging

t root 296592 13 mar 18.42 /usr/lib/libMowitz.so.0.2.0 > > And the version number of the package is 0.2.0 as well. That sounds like a bad news, a potential sign of upstream changing binary interface between 0.1.0 and 0.2.0 regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junich

Re: Library packaging

incompatible change to the library, and call it 0.3.0 (well, it's only natural). However, in the library sense, if it is binary-incompatible, it should have a new soname, i.e. 1.0.0 regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG

Re: Library packaging

st sign of a changed interface are: o random segfault o irrational behavior regards, junihi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Library packaging

could, however, be changes in the source which does affect. I don't know if there could be a systematic way to do it. Warning might be possible, but not strict and real checking. Lintian won't be able to do this, because lintian only has access to one version of source at the tim

updated library packaging FAQ(Re: Library packaging)

Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit: Well, now I updated the doc a little bit, I'll post it here. I've received exactly one response so far, and I'm feeling a bit naive about the contents of this document. Please comment: Library packaging Guide (very m

Re: packaging question

On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 00:07:47 + "David H. Askew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok.. so i'm working on packages for jedit .. and I'm contemplating > splitting the documentation into its own sepperate package. That I would object. Splitting the docs when it doessn't have to happen, it not u

Re: Package names case sensitive?

On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:04:41 +0200 Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:42, Stefan Schwandter wrote: > > I know that policy recommends not to use uppercase letters in package > > names, but I'd like to package jack (jackit.sourceforge.net). > > Unfortunately, there alre

Re: packaging question

rs don't really need to care about python-version compatibility, do they ? Their primary aim is to write code that works for them, not write code that works on both. maybe I am wrong, I don't code in python (yet). regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://

Re: Package names case sensitive?

FMaintainer dancer@debian -sPackage| awk '{sum+= length($2); i ++} END{print sum / i }' 12.3125 grep-available -FMaintainer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -sPackage| awk '{sum+= length($2); i ++} END{print sum / i }' 10.3571 regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Ue

Re: shlibdeps

rkings of tcl/tk, but they are provided as shared libraries. I've got an impression that it will cause problems. For example, try compiling against tck/tk 8.3, and remove 8.3 and install 8.0, and then run the program. The program should fail to start. regards, junichi -- [E

Re: dchroot (?) on developer machines

a script to do that. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Re: changelog and /usr/share/doc/package as a symlink

Should "package" depend on exactly the > same version of "package-data"? Why do you have to make it a symlink at all ? By doing that you are distributing a .deb file which does not contain copyright information, etc. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi U

Re: changelog and /usr/share/doc/package as a symlink

do with providing a symlink to usr/share/doc/package that's a maintainer decision. > > Don't just split without good reason. > > Just making sure one of the good reasons was seen in the discussion. Trying, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://

Re: changelog and /usr/share/doc/package as a symlink

having -x version when there is -sdl version ? (is both of them maintained in a good shape or is only one of them?) Note: Splitting packages up causes more work, and maintenance cost. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerp

Re: changelog and /usr/share/doc/package as a symlink

that will (seeing that it is unmaintained) probably decay to unusability. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/li

Re: Trouble with shared libraries

ack with more questions. Are you the upstream to the package too ? libtool is quite useful. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr

Re: Trouble with shared libraries

btool cc -o whatever.la whatever.lo other.lo -version-info 0:0:0 -export-dynamic They will make the shared library links properly. Also, use libtool install whatever.la $(DESTDIR)/usr/lib/ libtool rm -f *~ *.lo whatever.la etc. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa

Re: Which packages got upgraded ?

unstable, one can look at the changelogs, but is there a way to know > which packages entered woody last week, or given a package, when it > entered woody ? I doubt it, but it would help if you name the # of bug. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://

Re: Library package naming

shared libs only?). I'd rather have shared libs with some Debian-specific versioning than unversioned static library because it is easier to track bugs on them, and fix them. However, please see my libpkg-guide. I'm trying to collect some more information/examples into the lis

Re: Library package naming

gets released as a "stable" Debian release, it will be stable for a long time. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.j

Re: xlibs (4.1.0-16) depends on xlibs (>> 4.1.0). Can you explian?

o. I do not recommend having so many shared libraries in one package, but this is what you get as a result running dpkg-shlibsdeps on such package. I don't think it will gain anything. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Finger

Re: Library package naming

e will get > quite long. Should I keep them indefinitely? Why? The only one required is Conflicts: libijs-dev. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide:

Re: Library package naming

config for you (very nice!). I do have a few packages which auto-generates debian/control. I am starting to think that it doesn't really scale up, however. I'm inclined to use a "error-out-if-it-doesn't-match" approach (d-shlibs) regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Library package naming (and sponsor wanted)

lems, since the parsing is done within debian/rules. I don't know, but it should probably be done in debian/rules clean target. I'd rather use objdump -p debian/tmp/usr/lib/libwhatever.so | grep SONAME than $(UPSTREAM_VERSION). regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junic

Re: Bug#146786: debhelper: deb packages should contain SONAME

radict policy. Yeah, and that discretion of the individual maintainer has caused enough problems that I decided to write the guide. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92

Re: Bug#145113: gcvs: Section should be "devel"

> > The "x11" section is reserved for X server software, window managers > > and such. > > > > This package should be in "devel". > > Hmm. That does seem to make more sense. But... I can't find where this is > spelled out. It's not really spelled out. Use of some kind of common sense, and get

Re: Binary depends

On Fri, 24 May 2002 11:27:59 -0700 (PDT) "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > auto-apt only detects "file not found" and does a look up in the file list for > the package which owns it. It is not of much help during the package build. It installs the package. -- [EMAIL

Re: changing teTeX default config. for buildd

On Sat, 25 May 2002 00:44:11 -0700 Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My thoughts: > This is not my bug but a limitation of buildd. What should I do? > Why buildd even bother to build documentation (ALL) package? > Can anyone give me educated guide how to handle this? My impression is t

Re: dpkg compresses diff file differently

erent file when it was compressed at a different time. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/ --

Re: how to package conflicting libraries ?

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:24:39 +0200 Eric Gentilini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > Considering a given library libfoo, which of another version supporting > multithreading is available, called libfoo-mt. > libfoo-mt offers all the functionnalities offered by libfoo and programs > compiling with

Re: Libtool for multiple libs in one source package

> I have had a similar problem and solved it by exporting a LIBRARY_PATH > variable during the install step : > > replacing >$(MAKE) install ... > by >export LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd`/debian/tmp/usr/lib; $(MAKE) install ... > > NOTE : LIBRARY_PATH not LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > Hmm... this hack s

Re: unversioned shared library

le.am Add it somewhere with libiiwusynth_la_SOURCES are defined. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai

Re: Libraries and position independent code (-fPIC)

gelse.c other.c libtarget.whatever.so: ${sources:.c=.lo} libtarget.a: ${sources:.c=.o} %.lo: %.c gcc -fPIC .. %.o: %.c gcc regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059

Re: [binary+libs] or [binary] + [libs]

you have not already read it, is in my sig. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/ -- To UNSUBSCRI

Re: pbuilder, debarchiver, quintuple-agent

ss arguments to > dpkg-genchanges. Try something like: DEBBUILDOPTS=-sa regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/c

Re: Problem with shlibs

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:04:16 -0300 Carlos Laviola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > A package that I maintain -- mp3blaster -- doesn't include libsidplay1 > as a dependency, even though it links against it. I hadn't noticed that > because I thought everything was working fine, as I hadn't tri

Re: Setting a default path with autoconf

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:08:16 +0100 Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The "average user" shouldn't be running configure with a prefix of / > > or /usr, and so the default is what they want. /etc and /usr are > > "owned" by dpkg, so nothing should be installed manually there. > > Running

Re: building packages on unstable for stable

s. So, any file that is in your debian diff will have no executable bit set. It's a common mistake. Set the executable bit in your build, or call them like: /bin/sh some-script. /bin/perl ... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E

Re: Handling application private libs

lib/packagename/, but I need to make them available for the runtime > linker. What would be the point of restricting the shared libraries to within the software ? regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E

Re: Handling application private libs

hared libs is usually only "--enable-shared=no" away... regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/

Re: Handling application private libs

libraries, though most seem to access them directly dlopen(). They are different in that they are plugins. Some just do dlopen for the sake of it, but there are applications which are dynamically pluggable. (like LADSPA). regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.n

Re: Build-Depends/Depends wierdness

rs' > desktops), so I'm going to believe objdump over ldd at this point. You can try pbuilder. It is designed to do such jobs. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD3

Re: Debhelper files w/ meta values

On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:59:20 -0600 "Joel Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a way to specify the following in a Debhelper file (such as > .dirs or .links)? > > usr/include/$(SHELLVARIABLE)/foo.h Why bother using debhelper at all ? You can use variables in debian/rules all right. reg

Re: Debhelper files w/ meta values

On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:29:34 -0600 "Joel Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You can use variables in debian/rules all right. > > Er. Because it's helpful? Being able to do dh_installdirs, dh_installlinks, > dh_install (etc) and have the lists in sane files of only that is far > easier to manag

Re: Help creating a c2lib package

brief description of what it is and what it does would be a big plus. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/li

Re: library version equals to project version ?

ades, interface compatibility can be kept, which means interface number does not need to change. avifile-player probably ignores that part, or changes the library version number on every release, or whatever. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fin

Re: s390 build

At Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:45:15 -0500, Neil L. Roeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > due to a compile error. I logged on to trex and attempted to build it in the > unstable chroot. It built without error. Then I noticed that the error in > the buildd log referred to a file /usr/include/c++/3.2/backwa

Re: build failures & compiler versions

At Thu, 31 Oct 2002 06:58:00 -0500, Neil L. Roeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, gcc 2.95 is still supposed to be what s390 uses. Sounds like someone > > has "tweaked" the s390 buildd. > > Who can I ask to untweak the s390 buildd, and get my package rebuilt? > That's not the point of the

Re: build failures & compiler versions

> > > Who can I ask to untweak the s390 buildd, and get my package rebuilt? > > > > > That's not the point of the bug report, > > you should fix your package to build with gcc-3.2, so > > that the switchover may happen with less pain. > > I will attempt to build it with 3.2 on i386. I was a

Re: Which compiler

> But the plan is to move all architectures to gcc-3.2 for sarge. > I don't know why this hasn't happened already. That at least requires working gcc-3.2 and hence probably working glibc 2.3 for all arches, which has not happened yet. regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Re: Some questions about patching source

> The plan I have come up with is to put all the files it needs into a > debian/patches directory, and alter the Makefile accordingly. This > works just fine, although it makes the resulting .diff about twice the > size of the original source code, and it means it need to be redone > every time th

Re: FHS ambiguity: /usr/lib or /usr/share?

> Putting script libraries into /usr/lib does not break systems mounted in > such manner, it only increases number of files that should be stored > separately for each architecture. Yes, I was quite wondering that too, and people tend to disagree on that point, and some people tend to be walking

How to change file owner for deb packages properly?

Hi, I have a question. There are packages which probably need to be changed the owner (or suid) in .deb packages. Trying to chown to a user which does not exist will obviously emit an error like this: dh_link dh_strip dh_compress dh_fixperms chown netsaint debian/netsaint-neat/usr/lib/cgi-bin/

Re: SML-NJ Package Names

> smlnj-lib : misc libs for sml At least, I don't want binary packages to be named -lib. If they are shared libraries, make it libwhateverX and read libpkg-guide. if they are some SML libraries, name them libsml-whatever-whatever regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: How to build a package from cvs.

> I am (have already) building a new package from the cvs tree, but my question > is: > > Shall I run the autobuild (called bootstrap) on my system and go with the > package using those results or I shall modify my debian/rules to create the > Makefile.in and friends during compilation time? > >

Re: pbuilder - how to use existing apt cache?

> > Since I'm behind a 64-k ISDN line, I would like pbuilder to use cached > > packages from /var/cache/apt/archives, if available instead of > > unconditionally downloading all the stuff. But unfortunately, > > /var/cache/apt/archives doesn't seem to be accessible from within the > > chroot. > >

Re: age in libraries and debian package names

> Hi. > (A special hello to Junichi who is CCed because of his libpkg-guide.) > > I'm having a package that will probably use the age feature of release > numbering. (I.e. libfoo.a.b.1 to indicate that programs linked against libfoo.a > and libfoo.(a-1) can use it as documented in the libtool doc

Re: package does not build everywhere due to midding header -- help sought

> To my knowledge, Netfilter's ULOG target (and thus ipt_ULOG.h) > appeared in kernel version 2.4.18. On neither architecture, kernel > versions greater than 2.4.17 are available, so I guess using > ulog-acctd on those architectures would not make much sense, anyhow. I don't think it is intended

Re: libgtop2 NMU and advice asked.

> I am currently preparing a NMU for libgtop2, which is broken and whose > maintainer told me has no time to fix right now. > > Now, the problem was that the libgtop library moved from 0.so.0.0.1 to > 0.so.1.0.1, and the install rules didn't catch this changes. The normal procedure is to rename

Re: libgtop2 NMU and advice asked.

> > The normal procedure is to rename the binary package to > > libgtop2-1 (it should probably have been libgtop2.0-1, but > > people seem to have their own tastes about this.) > > Ok, thanks for the info, and what is the procedure concerning this and > NMUs ? Also, while this name change mean

Re: RFS: pdsh

>Commercialization of this product is prohibited without notifying the >Department of Energy (DOE) or Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory >(LLNL)." > > This seems to me to conflict with the GPL, and I'd like confirmation on > that. I guess if it is, then the proper procedure would

Re: RFS: pdsh -- An efficient rsh-like utility, for using hosts in paralell

> Pdsh is a high-performance, parallel remote shell utility. It has > built-in, thread-safe clients for Berkeley and Kerberos V4 rsh, and can > call SSH externally (though with reduced performance). Pdsh uses a > "sliding window" parallel algorithm to conserve socket resources on the > initiating n

Re: lintian W: sharedobject-in-library-directory-not-actually-a-shlib

> Lintian, however, can't know that this particular library usually is > preloaded, not linked to. Hence the override. If its use is going to be something like that, please don't put it in /usr/lib. That's what the lintian warning is about. regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai

Re: lintian W: sharedobject-in-library-directory-not-actually-a-shlib

> Lintian, however, can't know that this particular library usually is > preloaded, not linked to. Hence the override. If its use is going to be something like that, please don't put it in /usr/lib. That's what the lintian warning is about. regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai

Re: [Fwd: Re: jackd/ dpkg-statoverride/ "audio" group question(s)]

> > > > Is there a policy for audio apps in this regard? > > > > No, but there should be, probably. > > Since there are a lot of audio applications starting to > hit sid, eg. jackd, ardour, etc, where would be the place to > discuss "policy" in this regard - eg., having an audio group, > and sui

Re: Error on dpkg-buildpackage

> > > > AFAIR, you have to change > > CFLAGS=$(CFLAGS) ./configure [...] > > to > > CFLAGS="$(CFLAGS)" ./configure [...] > > in debian/rules. > > Wouldn't > > CFLAGS += .configure [...] > > be a lot easier in most cases? That's a totally different notion :P We're trying to se

Re: Iuusues when packaging libraries..

> I am responsible for the package htdig. Htdig is a full-text indexer for > (local) sites, ie. will generate a full-text (searchable) index of that > site. > The thing is written in C++, and comes with loads of libraries. While > the procedure described in the various manuals (the shlibs syste

Re: Best way to specify which GCC to use

currently seen as a bad idea to do this on ia64. The details are not available to me. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4

Re: backwards compatibility with stable

en I can't work it out. Don't use debhelper, or keep your debhelper compatibility level at "2" or less, because debhelper v3 was not available in potato. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D

Re: Conditional use of debconf

annoying to see too many notes. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4

Re: Include bison-generated files in package?

ething else I should do? I'd recommend build depending on bison, and building it. Having intermediate files included in the distribution is rather wrong, and I think the preferred source format for editing is the bison source, not the bison-generated source. regards, junichi --

Re: request for a sponsor

ards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4

Re: Looking for a sponsor

It's > almost, but not quite, lintian clean; it produces one error --- Have you considered asking the upstream to change the license ? regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4

Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh

> It is not for a normal user.) Packaging of setuid programs is very discouraged for first-time packagers. Are you sure you want to do that ? regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4

Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh

m ? My personal feeling is that I don't like large diffs, and Debian-specific modifications. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4

<    1   2   3   >