If an upstream author provides a man page, which includes
info about paths or install scripts that will not be present
in the debianized version, should I modify the man page?
-Mitch
pgpMugjlYXFx2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
chew
out my provider.
--
This .sig space available for lease. Please contact:
Mitch Blevins | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpWKWmGBz5zN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ckage: qiv
Version: 1.0-1
Architecture: i386
Depends: gdk-imlib1, libc6 (>= 2.0.7u), libgtk1 (>= 1:1.0.6-2), libjpeg62,
libjpegg6a, libpng2, libtiff3g, libungif3g (>= 3.0-2) | giflib3g (>= 3.0-5.2),
xlib6g (>= 3.3-5), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.3)
Installed-Size: 49
Maintainer: Mitch Bl
James Troup wrote:
> Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Depends: gdk-imlib1, libc6 (>= 2.0.7u), libgtk1 (>= 1:1.0.6-2), libjpeg62,
> > libjpegg6a, \
>
> ^^^
Cohen Brothers?
(movie producers of Raising Arizona, The Big Liebowsky, Barton Fink, etc)
--
This .sig space available for lease. Please contact:
Mitch Blevins | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpGK2mreLxTn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Holger Eitzenberger wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 1998 at 09:49:11PM -0500, Mitch Blevins wrote:
>
> > and for 10 BONUS POINTS:
> > Can you name the first names of the Cohen Brothers?
> > (movie producers of Raising Arizona, The Big Liebowsky, Barton Fink, etc)
>
>
look at the -fPIC option), change the makefile to link dynamically,
and your lintian problems will disappear!
Good luck,
-Mitch
--
This .sig space available for lease. Please contact:
Mitch Blevins | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpFTKfLF0fAJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t his reasoning for doing
this. There may be something in the program that doesn't work as desired
when dynamically linked.
-Mitch
--
This .sig space available for lease. Please contact:
Mitch Blevins | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpOilzmImaGF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hello...
I just used dupload to upload my first package (bpowerd) to master,
and it only uploaded the four files:
bpowerd_2.1-2.diff.gz
bpowerd_2.1-2.dsc
bpowerd_2.1-2_i386.changes
bpowerd_2.1-2_i386.deb
without uploading the *.orig.tar.gz file. Is this because it is a -2 rev?
Do I need to also
James Troup wrote:
> Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > without uploading the *.orig.tar.gz file. Is this because it is a
> > -2 rev?
>
> Yep. `-sa' to dpkg-buildpackage is your friend. See the fine manual
> for more details.
Very good, th
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> "Mitch" == Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > James Troup wrote:
> >> Yep. `-sa' to dpkg-buildpackage is your friend. See the fine
> >> manual for more details.
>
> > =20 Very good, thanks. This will help
That is the question.
An upstream author has changed a supporting script that only
affects systems using a configure option for BSD-style systems.
Should I upload a new .deb based on his new version number, even
though the binary .deb will be exactly the same (except for the
changelog)?
The only
in => mblevin,
incoming => "/home/Debian/ftp/private/project/Incoming/",
mailto => "[EMAIL PROTECTED]",
mailtx => "[EMAIL PROTECTED]",
visibleuser => mblevin,
visiblename => debian.org,
fullname => "Mitch Blevins",
};
TIA,
-Mitch
pgpNEQjGDgYtA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
If the upstream author includes a binary precompiled
(I guess for users uncomfortable with compiling)
in his tarball, should this be passed along in the *.orig.tar.gz?
I don't want to hose any scripts expecting to find just text, and
I don't want to bloat the size unnecessarily.
Thanks,
-Mitch
Will someone please point me to a package that has a good example
of diversions. I am assuming that this is what I need to package
gnumaniac, which replaces the outdated man pages in the *-utils
gnu packages.
TIA,
-Mitch
pgpY0oB41lLMJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Roderick Schertler wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:50:43 -0500, Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > login => mblevin,
> > visibleuser => mblevin,
> > visiblename => debian.org,
>
> The dupload.conf file
Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have sent 2 e-mails to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] requiring to be
> assigned as the packager of
>
> libvdk
> langdrill
>
> I've got no answer till now (already 2 days since wrote about libvdk to
> new-maintainer).
>
> What is the usual amount of
Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> To train myself, I am packing one of my own programs. I have understood
> that, in the case debian_source == original_source, you can add to your
> source directory tree a directory called debian and keep specific files
> there.
>
> I have 2 questions about this:
> 1. I am
I have an app that has optional gnome support (gtksamba).
Naturally, I would like to release 2 binary packages: gtksamba
and gtksamba-gnome.
What is the basic procedure for this? I assume this is fairly common
among gtk apps (having optional gnome support).
Anyone have an example package I can l
I believe that the technical term for what I've done is a 'boo-boo'.
I blame it on raging stupidity on my part. But how can I fix it?
Here's the situation:
I uploaded gtksamba-0.1.4 -- no problem.
I uploaded gtksamba-0.3.0 -- no problem.
I uploaded gtksamba-3.1 -- PROBLEM!
As you can see, I lef
Only one package (lyx) on my machine makes use of /usr/X11R6/share.
I do not find this directory mentioned in the fsstd, but it seems
the logical place for architecture-independant data for X11 programs.
Is using this directory specifically forbidden?
Or is it okay for a program to be in /usr/X11R
Background: I want to create another binary package from gtksamba, which
is currently build without gnome support. The new binary package would
have gnome support and would Conflict with and Provide gtksamba and would
be called gtksamba-gnome.
The only difference between the packages is that one
James Troup wrote:
> Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The $64K question is... is this okay?
>
> No; see the fine packaging manual. `build' is a required target for
> debian/rules (3.2.1) and if you omit, your package will be unbuildable
> with d
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > James Troup wrote:
> > > Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > The $64K question is... is this okay?
> > >
> > &
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 06:22:39PM -0500, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> > >
> > > No, the build target should be present and should do something,
> > > i.e. build the package. Even if it only depends on the two other
> > > bui
Well, I know we've beat this one to death, but I still have a problem.
I'd appreciate it if anyone can take the time to look at this.
Make segfaults while trying to install.
The rules file can be found here:
http://www.debian.org/~mblevin/frustration/rules.txt
And the rest of the package (*.orig.t
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> I'm trying to build a debian package; this is the first debian package I
> try to build, so I need some help.
> I'm reading "Debian packaging manual" and "Debian policy manual". That's
> enough, or there is a better tutorial? The packaging manual looks as a
> des
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> I use root account to debianize a package and to exec all the scripts,
> except lintian. Is it wrong? Or is better to use my ordinary account and
> give it write permission on /usr/local?
I would _not_ package as root. You can give yourself permissions
in a sub
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> Hello there.
>
> My name is Marco Kuhlmann; I am intending to prepare several
> Debian packages containing the Mozart Programming System (see
> www.mozart-oz.org for further information). Being totally
> unexperienced when it comes to packaging, I guess I am
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 04:08:59PM -0500, Mitch Blevins wrote:
>
> > Are you sure you don't mean that the script is checking for libgmp.so?
> > This is the problem I ran into when I looked at packaging it.
> > Of course you can se
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > It that's a normal configure script, look in configure.in for something
> > > like:
> > >
> > > AC_CHECK_LIB (gmp2, ...)
> > >
> >
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 09:12:45AM -0500, Mitch Blevins wrote:
>
> > Great, thanks!
> > http://www.mozart-oz.org/download/srctar.shtml
>
> in mozart/aclocal.m4, look for
>
> OZ_CHECK_LIB_PATH(gmp, mpz_init,
>
> and change
Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
> Mitch Blevins wrote (1999-02-17, 16:08):
>
> > > I found out that the script checks for libgmp2.so, while the
> > ^^
> > Are you sure you don't mean that the script is checking for libgmp.s
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> *SO*
>
> 1) What I'd like to do is try removing it's depends on
> kbd and/or kbd-compat (at least for my trial
> versions) and rebuild until it works (retesting it's
> deps) -- I'll leave it's conflicts in, but
> I think it only depended because of the fonts --
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> I looked at a few other things -- would it be possible (well, advisable)
> to rename my fonts, then in postintst, do the test, then either rename
> or delete my duplicates.
Possible, yes. Advisable, no.
dpkg would still think the fonts are the original names, a
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 11:07:14PM +0100, Pedro Guerreiro wrote:
>
> > I'm not yet a developer [...]
> >
> > I'm wondering what will happen when I try upload the new packages to master?
> > Some are not -1 version anymore, and some already have newer upstream
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> James Mastros writes:
> > Package it as version 1:1.1; next time package as 1:2.0.2, which will
> > give the ordering you're looking for. (The 1: is an "era"; it won't
> > normaly get displayed. Made for just this sort of thing.)
>
> It's an "epoch", I believe
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I am also just a bit astonished by the notion that 1.1 < 1.02.
>
> Ben Collins writes:
> > Numerically this is the same as saying 1.1 < 1.2 or 1.01 < 1.02. Dpkg
>
> The leading zero is clearly intended to imply a decimal point. This is in
> no way
How do I handle the case where the upstream author renames a package?
I have a package, gtksamba.
It is conditionally compiled to produce to binary packages:
gtksamba and gtksamba-gnome.
Upstream is renaming it to gnosamba, and dropping support for gtk-only.
The original package has never made it
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Mitch Blevins wrote:
> > How do I handle the case where the upstream author renames a package?
> >
> > I have a package, gtksamba.
> > It is conditionally compiled to produce to binary packages:
> > gtksamba and gtksamba-gnome.
> >
Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > You are suggesting that potato be released containing three different
> > packages (which are really the same package)?
> >
> > gtksamba, gtksamba-gnome, gnosamba
> >
> > Adding the Conflicts:, Provides:, and Replaces: line makes perfect sense,
> > but I'm confused why yo
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> Why should we need to have two differing copies? Everyone can download
> from non-US servers - they just can't be hosted in the US. (IMHO main
> is only in 'US' servers because the majority of developers are in the US).
I believe the bandwidth is cheaper in th
42 matches
Mail list logo
