Packaging A+

ld not find any packages for /home/aplus/src/aplus-fsf-4.18/debian/aplus-fsf/usr/lib/libIPC.so.0 (libIPC.so.0) What does that mean? What packages is it looking for? -- Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Lintian warnings on A+ package

or no? I can email the packages or the source if that would help. -- Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Lintian warnings on A+ package

On Jan 9, Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Mmmm, the man page about dh_installman is quite obscure... > Ok, you should write something like > > debian/a+.1 > debian/aplus-fsf.1 > > within debian/manpages or debian/a+.manpages That did it. Thank

Re: Lintian warnings on A+ package

dh_installman mentions, so I guess that is a case where I could have RTFM a bit closer. However, the proper syntax for each entry in the file or the command line argument is not in the dh_installman man page. I got it from Francesco's email. -- Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Lintian warnings on A+ package

e, mozilla-* > uses /usr/lib/mozilla/components/. A soname is also not mandatory in > this case. OK, that sounds appropriate for this package. Then, since the libraries will not be in the standard directories, should I let the binary contain the rpath, or remove it and put the directorie

Re: Lintian warnings on A+ package

On Jan 9, Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:45:23AM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote: > > On Jan 9, Robert Bihlmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: &g

request for a sponsor

package which simply depends on the above three I have not publicly released the packages yet, but I can point potential sponsors to a download location. Thanks. -- Neil L. Roeth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

dhelp_parse error?

anks. -- Neil L. Roeth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dhelp_parse error?

On Feb 11, Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:51:54PM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote: > > > When installing or purging the package I am developing, I get the message > > "dhelp_parse: no title found for directory windowmanagers".

new error messages

pdate-fonts-alias misc as added by debhelper. What do I need to do to make it go away? -- Neil L. Roeth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

s390 build

ble chroot? -- Neil L. Roeth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: build failures & compiler versions

package layout for the architecture"? I am trying to figure out why the build daemon on s390 tried (and failed) to build my package with 3.2, yet the unstable chroot on trex has 2.95.4 (with which it builds fine). -- Neil L. Roeth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subj

Re: build failures & compiler versions

On Oct 30, Steve Langasek ([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? Thanks. -- Neil L. Roeth -- To UNSUB

Re: build failures & compiler versions

On Oct 31, Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 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

Re: Really strange : my package doesn't compile from source.

OCK- > Version: 3.12 > GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ > O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ > G e h! r- y+ > --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- Neil L. Roeth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[OT] A question for programmers - Inspiration

echnology Services Manager > Nike Team Sports > (949)-616-4005 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Technology doesn't make you less stupid; it just makes you stupid faster." > Jerry Gregoire - Former CIO at Dell > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Packaging A+

ld not find any packages for /home/aplus/src/aplus-fsf-4.18/debian/aplus-fsf/usr/lib/libIPC.so.0 (libIPC.so.0) What does that mean? What packages is it looking for? -- Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Lintian warnings on A+ package

or no? I can email the packages or the source if that would help. -- Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Lintian warnings on A+ package

On Jan 9, Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Mmmm, the man page about dh_installman is quite obscure... > Ok, you should write something like > > debian/a+.1 > debian/aplus-fsf.1 > > within debian/manpages or debian/a+.manpages That did it. Thank

Re: Lintian warnings on A+ package

dh_installman mentions, so I guess that is a case where I could have RTFM a bit closer. However, the proper syntax for each entry in the file or the command line argument is not in the dh_installman man page. I got it from Francesco's email. -- Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Lintian warnings on A+ package

/usr/lib/aplus). For example, mozilla-* > uses /usr/lib/mozilla/components/. A soname is also not mandatory in > this case. OK, that sounds appropriate for this package. Then, since the libraries will not be in the standard directories, should I let the binary contain the rpath, or remove it and put the directories into ld.so.conf, or do something else? -- Neil L. Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Lintian warnings on A+ package

On Jan 9, Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:45:23AM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote: > > On Jan 9, Robert Bihlmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: &g

request for a sponsor

which simply depends on the above three I have not publicly released the packages yet, but I can point potential sponsors to a download location. Thanks. -- Neil L. Roeth

dhelp_parse error?

When installing or purging the package I am developing, I get the message "dhelp_parse: no title found for directory windowmanagers". Does anyone know what I need to do to make this go away? I don't explicitly call dhelp_parse or dh_dhelp anywhere in debian/rules. Should I? Than

Re: dhelp_parse error?

On Feb 11, Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:51:54PM -0500, Neil L. Roeth wrote: > > > When installing or purging the package I am developing, I get the message > > "dhelp_parse: no title found for directory windowmanagers".

new error messages

pdate-fonts-alias misc as added by debhelper. What do I need to do to make it go away? -- Neil L. Roeth

s390 build

ble chroot? -- Neil L. Roeth

Re: build failures & compiler versions

package layout for the architecture"? I am trying to figure out why the build daemon on s390 tried (and failed) to build my package with 3.2, yet the unstable chroot on trex has 2.95.4 (with which it builds fine). -- Neil L. Roeth

Re: build failures & compiler versions

On Oct 30, Steve Langasek ([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? Thanks. -- Neil L. Roeth

Re: build failures & compiler versions

On Oct 31, Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 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&q

Re: Really strange : my package doesn't compile from source.

OCK- > Version: 3.12 > GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ > O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ > G e h! r- y+ > --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- Neil L. Roeth

[OT] A question for programmers - Inspiration

echnology Services Manager > Nike Team Sports > (949)-616-4005 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Technology doesn't make you less stupid; it just makes you stupid faster." > Jerry Gregoire - Former CIO at Dell > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Neil L. Roeth

lintian rpath warning

IANAE, but I just went through a package cleaning up the library and rpath handling, so perhaps I can offer some help. I would start by cleansing your makefiles of any explicit mention of /usr/lib, /lib, and any other directories listed in ld.so.conf (e.g., /usr/X11R6/lib). These are part of the d

Re: lintian rpath warning

On Apr 25, Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "Neil L. Roeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > IANAE, but I just went through a package cleaning up the library and rpath > > handling, so perhaps I can offer some help. > > Thanks! > >