Can you please try and fix `fakeroot' for us?
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
>> >
>> > > Can you please try and fix `fakeroot&#x
Do I need the Conficts and Replaces fields in this and other Package
entries where there was one like it in the previous XEmacs version?
I think I do; tell me if I'm wrong.
8<>8
Package: @PROGNAME@@MAJVERSION@@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archit
> "Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Thanks for your comments. I have changed the system as
Adam> follows:
Adam> [... code snip elided ...]
Adam> Thus, 2.0 compat is retained by default.
Adam> As you can see, the question is only answered if the v
If you do that, your .diff.gz will try to have a binary file in it.
You can cure that by converting the graphic into a base64 encoded
text file, for the diff.gz, and then in debian/rules, when you go to
install it in `build', you turn it back into a graphic and install
that.
> "Jordi" == Jordi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jordi> [1 ] On Sun, Jan
Jordi> 30, 2000 at 08:01:52AM +, Alexander Koch wrote:
>> > Because you have a computer that wont reliably run 2.2.x
>> without > crashing?
>>
>> You are a minority. I don't care about 2.0.x an
cking upstream CVS and my
debian.killer-app/ stuff... and they run an `apt-get source
killer-app' there to get my latest release's debian/* stuff to vendor
track me. It might blow away yet-to-be-submitted patches they have
in the code by untarring to "killer-app".
The version number is important inside .orig.tar.gz for this reason!!
--
mailto: Karl M. Hegbloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://people.debian.org/~karlheg/
I'd put it in /usr/doc/pkgname/examples/, I think.
> "Nathan" == Nathan L Cutler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been very impressed by the info docs in libc6-doc. It
> makes programming quite a bit easier.
Especially with `info-look.el'. `M-x info-lookup-symbol'. :-)
t need an upgrade? Will I learn this stuff in less
than four or five more years and actually land a paying job?
I'm using:
Package: xlib6g-dev
Maintainer: Mark W. Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Version: 3.3.1-2
... and:
Package: gcc
Maintainer: Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So
[ cc'd to _debian-mentors_. *Please advise*.
This is concerning:
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/18/18026.html> ]
Please Cc: relevant responses to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think that `gv' needs to depend on the `gsfonts' package,
since it depends upon `gs' | `gs-aladdin', which should dep
> "Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Mind you, I think splitting docs is generally a good idea,
I'd often like to install just the docs so I can find out what
something is, and read about it a little to decide whether I need it
or not.
--- /tmp/blah Sat Feb 28 22:39:24 1998
+++ /tmp/blah2 Sat Feb 28 22:40:02 1998
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
This is concerning:
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/18/18026.html> ]
- Please Cc: relevant responses to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ Please Cc: pertinent responses to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think t
Marco> Anyways, as jens says, it is possible to set up gs |
Marco> gs-aladdin to use e.g. the fonts of X. More in general, a
Marco> better management for the gs fonts is required (i.e.,
Marco> scripts to install/deinstall families of fonts). I am
Marco> working on this, but th
Why is the library numbered as .so.2.0.0, rather than as `.so.1.2.0'?
I would like to rename it, to `.so.1.2.0', and make the snapshot be
`.so.1.3.1'. Is there a way to do that without causing lots of
problems?
It would be good to have the library bear the actual version number,
and to mak
`libguile' installs a file called "/usr/share/aclocal/threads.m4",
which seems to me like a poor choice of name for it, since it's too
generic. Shouldn't this be renamed to something like
`guile-threads.m4'?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> Currently, you force to have those tools installed to
Santiago> everybody who wants to recompile the package.
Why is it a problem to require that `autoconf' and `automake' be
installed? Once you install the compiler
> "shaleh" == shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
shaleh> When creating lib packages, which package should link
shaleh> libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so?? Should the -dev or the lib
shaleh> itself??
The lib itself.
libfoo.so.1.2.3
libfoo.so -> libfoo.so.1.2.3
libfoo.so.1 -> libfoo
> "Damjan" == Damjan Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Damjan> Can someone tell me what I must do to close old bugs,
Damjan> after uploading new upstream version. I am a new
Damjan> maintainer of that package.
There's a WWW page up, if you follow the link to the bug tracking
s
>>>>> "Karl" == Karl M Hegbloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>> "shaleh" == shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
shaleh> When creating lib packages, which package should link
shaleh> libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so??
> "James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
James> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
>> > postinst: > ldconfig
>>
>> Nope.
James> Bzzt, wrong answer, you lose, humans die.
James> RTFM (the latest versions, still in Incoming). The
James> packagi
aks in for
readablity. It's more `apt' to look pleasing.
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom)
http://www.inetarena.com/~karlheg
Portland, OR USA
Debian GNU pre-2.0 Linux 2.0.33+trans+QNX AMD K5 PR-133 XEmacs-21beta
(("Dont judge a book by its cover" . "Read the book&
cking upstream CVS and my
debian.killer-app/ stuff... and they run an `apt-get source
killer-app' there to get my latest release's debian/* stuff to vendor
track me. It might blow away yet-to-be-submitted patches they have
in the code by untarring to "killer-app".
The versi
23 matches
Mail list logo
