nal
package.
> The next oldest package in NEW as been
> there for only one week. Should I react now and how?
No.
Problematic packages in NEW can easily take 8 weeks or more. Whilst it
is true that there is little to no feedback during this time, it
doesn't mean that your pac
esumably because of the failure to apply the changes in doc/)
Can you upload your test package source somewhere so that I can use
dget and try a test build?
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpgtfeC02hfb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
.1.0.0
./.libs/libadasockets.so.1
./.libs/libadasockets.so
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
>> Can you upload your test package source somewhere so that I can use
>> dget and try a test build?
>
> Files at
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/phil.brooke/debian/
>
s and is more like a typical, upstream, compiled
package that fits the NM guide more closely. Maintainer scripts
themselves are not something I would recommend that you worry about at
this stage. I seems to me that you haven't learnt the rest of the
packaging system yet and you need to be familiar wit
revisit daloradius packaging until you have had at least one non-PHP
package successfully sponsored and bug free in Debian testing.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
d, review later on. Don't worry about making
another upload the mentors until then.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 19:17 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> OK. Let's start with a simple review:
> (Minor tweaks based on a quick read through of debian/*)
> 1. Add a Homepage field to debian/control (and use the current URL, not
> the one from the old package.)
Bah, didn'
e list of directories in
debian/varkon.dirs so that you only list the deepest point of each part
of the directory tree, then dh_installdirs will create all the paths in
between and install can simply drop the files into place, with the
correct mode preset. It's a pity upstream don't have a u
t is a completely rewritten daloradius
with detailed explanations of the new secure-by-design coding and clear
evidence that every single line of PHP code has been rigorously
reviewed for security implications and the nature of the security
threats that you have considered - and make sure that list is a
complete list.
If you cannot do that, do not expect daloradius to ever be a Debian
package.
So either rewrite daloradius or move on to a different language and
learn how to package a simple, compiled, application.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgp6xSFmjD6LF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
whom I sponsor have shown that they value my time and my
input and they are all able to handle criticism and requests for
information without trolling. I will not spoon-feed those whom I
sponsor. A maintainer is required to be able to find out the necessary
information from the guides and resources
iption so that potential sponsors can decide whether to start a
review.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpPXF5cGXL7A.pgp
Description: PGP signature
subject to the programming language not being python).
http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/#lang
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpSSC2UINkdg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:25:18 +
David Newgas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 13:14 +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:46:11 +
> > David Newgas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Umm, I meant programming languag
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 23:25 +, David Newgas wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 13:14 +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:46:11 +
> > David Newgas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. I cannot check your GnuPG signature on the .dsc because you do not
appear to
secheck had an option to
ignore such files but this is easier upstream than in the actual
package because the autotools will convert the upstream symlink into a
real file for obvious reasons.
licensecheck is v.v.useful but it is mostly used for the source
directory.
--
Neil Williams
warning?
You may have a mismatch between Maintainer: and debian/changelog. You
must use exactly the same name and email address in debian/changelog as
you use in debian/control.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
# Please note that the actual code of GNU gettext is covered by the GNU
# General Public License and is *not* in the public domain.
This is clearer than the glib_gettextize version.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpOBPNXzHT4X.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ers would prevent me from having copyright issues later *sigh*
If it's your own file, put a proper GPL notice in place of this. It
does sound unnecessary.
> > ./po/id.po and other should explicitly state that they are GPL2+ licenced
> > and
> > not just refer to th
nclude the long description and clarify why this package is desirable
in Debian.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpTiSkXdvVjQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
plement versioned symbols and
support symbols files. Getting libraries to do things properly is the
real challenge. You need a very good understanding of libtool and
various other library-related issues.
Details of QOF: http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
http://qof.sourceforge.net/
h
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 09:35 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:56:18PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Quick summary: IMHO, symbols files are largely irrelevant if not
> > supported upstream via versioned symbols.
>
> Can you please argument this?
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 12:50 +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:44:32AM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 09:35 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:56:18PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Instead, the
ns that link
> against the libraries may conceivably link to only one of them and not the
> other).
(or if the libraries can operate separately upon installation - e.g.
plugins for libraries - because it helps keep the dependencies under
control.)
--
Neil Williams
=
http://
t recommend that anyone
seeking sponsorship wastes any time "solving" linda errors as it has, in
my experience, been wildly inaccurate. There are quite enough things to
fix in packaging without chasing "linda ghosts".
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
h
it's copyright should be declared in
> the copyright file.
That's a REJECT from the NEW queue.
> 2b. All copyrights should be declared though the third party code is not
> used in binary package (just because it is distributed in source package).
Everytime.
--
Neil William
package.
Overall, probably best. You will need to build-depend on xsltproc,
xml-core, docbook-xsl. Add a Recommends for dwww in the -doc package
too.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
lting mess.
The fact that the "mess" is still apparent means that the epoch is
essential. You don't have control over users of unofficial ports,
derived distributions or local mirrors - all places where the old
version can hang around for a very long time.
Set the epoch, conflict a
input-tslib
Version: 0.0.4-1
Architecture: amd64
Maintainer: Wen-Yen Chuang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Installed-Size: 76
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.7-1), libts-0.0-0 (>= 1.0), xserver-xorg-core (>= 2:1.4)
Provides: xserver-xorg-input-2
(there's also a clean target that you need).
v.good thing. Not sure it is yet something we should be
advising on mentors, that's all. It may well be harder than expected and
the methods are not that user-friendly.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 21:21 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 03/02/2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> > but if that extra dependency is genuinely necessary for some other
> > application which would almost inevitably be installed alongside the
> > package in question, then no
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 22:14 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 03/02/2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> > What I meant was if dependencyA appears in the dpkg-shlibdeps list
> > of "not needed" linkages for 'foo' but foo is nearly always
> > installed alongsid
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 05:22 +0800, Wen-Yen Chuang wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 11:19 +0800, Wen-Yen Chuang wrote:
> >> But it can not auto-generate "Provides: xserver-xorg-input-2&q
ackages from source code
Why is this worth having in Debian? (What's wrong with apt-get -b or
the half-dozen other ways of building a source package?)
How many more (vanity) build systems must we have
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepa
ry for this package. I don't remember
seeing a long description, maybe that would help?
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpv27bXRssTJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 02:35 +0530, Deepak Tripathi wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2008 11:58 PM, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:26:48 +0530
> Deepak Tripathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Dear mentors,
>
ge and your RFS is likely to be deleted without
any further action.
http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/#sponsor
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 08:37 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Just a note for everyone - I will now ignore any RFS that does not
> > include the long description for the package.
> >
> > It doesn't matter
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 23:25 -0500, Andres Mejia wrote:
> On Sunday 10 February 2008 10:13:50 am Neil Williams wrote:
> > Just a note for everyone - I will now ignore any RFS that does not
> > include the long description for the package.
> >
> > It doesn't matter ho
@echo "Slow-cpu arch detected, skipping checks.t"
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS += nocheck
> endif
if ...
DEB_MAKE_CHECK_TARGET = check
else
DEB_MAKE_CHECK_TARGET =
endif
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.c
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 12:07 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hey Neil,
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:02:40AM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Good, that's the kind of RFS I like to see - just one thing missing,
> > this is an existing package:
> > http://pa
on mentors.debian.net:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/ustr
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main
> contrib non-free
> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/ustr/ustr_1.0.3-2.dsc
>
> I would be gl
On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 01:27 +0800, Wen-Yen Chuang wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.0.4-4
> of my package "xf86-input-tslib".
I'll check this sometime during
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 17:53 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 01:27 +0800, Wen-Yen Chuang wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Dear mentors,
> >
> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.0.
x27;t an easy fix. The main
problem is breaking support for people who have pbuilder tarballs for
sid, lenny and etch (or Ubuntu equivalents). Creating individual
aptcaches for each is not a viable alternative.
It's probably just as easy to run a cron job to remove the pbuilder
aptcache once a mo
when?
It's no different to other files - if legality is a concern, ftp-masters
will reject the package. It is that simple. The only answer to that is
to ensure that all possible legal challenges are answered in
debian/copyright in advance. Every file, every attribution, every
pack
o be
included, it should be omitted. Packages that do include the revision
should not be assumed to be buggy merely due to the presence of such a
revision although it is sensible to check that the revision is
actually necessary.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
to
be copyright holders - that you didn't know about beforehand. (The lack
of full details for some of them makes things awkward - the best you can
do is quote this in debian/copyright as "from the upstream author".)
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http:/
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 19:11 +, Toby Smithe wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > He also specifies a number of extra people - some of whom are likely to
> > be copyright holders - that you didn't know abo
e a similar effect by enabling code in one directory without
adjusting the clean target properly.
The .loT file is a generated file and really should not be created in a
patch - a proper build will overwrite it anyway.
> pinot compiles just fine without this patch.
--
Neil Willia
s entry for description.
+ * Bump debhelper build-dep and compat to 5.
+ * Bump Standards Version to 3.7.3. (No changes needed).
The manpage change, in particular, is too minor for an NMU IMHO.
These issues are typical of a QA upload and should be done only if the
maintaine
there are quite a few
> upstream source code changes which I think would be better off
> in a patch system.
>
> I'd be willing to upload once these are addressed.
>
So why are we doing this now? This is an NMU - minimal changes scenario.
Barry is not the mai
s, can we please stick to the rules for NMUs so that those who
seek advice here can get clear guidance on what is required?
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 12:48 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Neither orange in the archive nor the result of your NMU even work for
> > > zip files (with unzip installed) nor ot
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 23:20 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 16:07 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Barry deFreese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Here is another one of my way too intrusive NMUs that closes RC bug
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 09:12 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> Barry - what about the other packages by the same maintainer (quite a
> few of them also have RC bugs)? The reason for orphaning orange applies
> to the other packages too. (mia-query does show that voc is MIA).
I'll fol
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 10:57 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2008-03-04, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are sponsors going to start recommending changing SONAMEs in an NMU
> > next? Adding -dbg packages? Of course not, NMUs are different to typical
> > RFS
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 12:37 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2008-03-05, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> of course is changing SONAMEs in a NMU appropriate if it is appropriate.
> >
> > That equates to a hostile hijacking. If the package is orphaned o
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:10:56 -0500
Barry deFreese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 09:12 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> >
> >> Barry - what about the other packages by the same maintainer (quite a
> >> few of
file
> with the current source tree.
Have you inadvertently made a native version?
Check your debian/changelog entry.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpkQ2hgd9ypO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
(And Frank is correct - xsp has not been orphaned so this is an NMU
request, not QA.)
I don't know mono so I'm not able to sponsor.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Descript
ECTED]
That subscribes you to only that specific bug report.
If you subscribe to the PTS, you get email about *all* bugs affecting
that package *and* details of uploads.
Simplest way to subscribe to the PTS is to use the HTML form on every
PTS page.
--
Neil Williams
=
htt
can get would be:
prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=${prefix}
libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib
includedir=${prefix}/include
Name: foo
Description: foo Library.
Version: 0.7.5
Requires: glib-2.0
Requires.private: bar
Libs: -L${libdir} -lfoo
Libs.private: -lm
Cflags: -I${includedir}/foo
Requires.private and Libs.pri
other changes,
it's only reasonable to do the same with the BTS entries.
> * License : MIT
(and a few others - I'll check on that later.)
There's no need for a new upload to mentors to fix these issues - it's
only a very quick review. I'll send a more detailed
Sorry, Robin, there's work to do on this package yet.
(On a better note, I've just got my laptop back from repair {new
motherboard} and it's working fine - thanks for all your help with
that!) :-)
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwar
ter state to be in rather
> that a library that cannot be used by GPL code.
>
> Longer term use libxml2 and remove libexpat so that php5 can use the
> library if they so wish.
>
> How does this sound?
(and add that -dbg package, fix the changelog --closes entry and
implement the autotool
ou break policy.
Policy is that a library MUST retain ABI/API compatibility if it is the
same SONAME. This is done specifically so that libfoo1 can be retained
during rebuilds to compatibility with libfoo2.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftw
.
I used 0.5.9+0.6.0pre1 for that last one I did. Current unstable at the
time had 0.5.6 (IIRC) and 0.6.0 was against a SONAME bump so went into
experimental until the library itself was available in unstable.
Your package MUST be able to build against unstable or it will get a
FTBFS bug from the aut
n to commit yourself to a permanent and
distasteful dissonance that only makes life harder for yourself and
upstream.
Been there, done that, don't recommend it. Think carefully about these
issues *before* you spend too much time on such packages. There are good
reasons why some issues have
t
place. (You usually also have to rewrite large portions of the old
packaging code to catch up with the current Standards-Version so it
really can be a lot more work.) Debian doesn't remove packages just
because the previous maintainer made such a 'good' job that s|he g
pts
> Couldn't find any package whose name or description matched
> "devscripts"
Which means that your apt sources are broken. Add a local primary mirror
from the link above.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.l
ools/script
(As I'm upstream, I decided to move the file in the source and drop this
rule for the current release - genmanpages is just a shell script to do
pod2man.)
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.
lit them into a
> "mogile-server-common" package?
C == foo-common in such a case.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
n/ showing
up in the .diff.gz.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
n is passed to
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS so that it can be easily disabled when cross building.
ifeq (,$(findstring nocheck,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
make check
endif
http://wiki.debian.org/EmdebianGuide
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.co
On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 13:06 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > make check
>
> Please use $(MAKE) instead of calling make directly.
Good point - updated the Wiki with the same.
--
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 10:14 -0700, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> >> 1) Always run the test suite (for example to catch bugs that may not
> >> occur on the developper's architecture)
> >
> > Yes. (That is the main point of having a test sui
ork.
> So what is the correct way to build the package?
$ dh-make
$ cd debian/
edit/copy in control, copyright, changelog and edit rules
remove unwanted files
$ cd ../
$ dpkg-buildpackage
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
htt
w Maintainer Guide are essential reading before asking
on this list. I'm not going to spoon feed you through those guides.
Also, reconsider whether this even deserves to be a separate package. I
would recommend submitting it as a patch to a bug report against a
complementary package that co
ross-built (and use the cc symlink instead of gcc).
ifneq ($(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE),$(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE))
CC=$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)-gcc
else
CC=cc
endif
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) lockrun.c -o lockrun
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://w
; It builds these binary packages:
> libxmlrpc-epi-dev - Development files for libxmlrpc-epi0, a XML-RPC
> request library
> libxmlrpc-epi0 - A XML-RPC request serialisation/deserialisation library
> libxmlrpc-epi0-dbg - Debug symbols for libxmlrpc-epi0, a XML-RPC request
> l
0.3.1.1-1 actually
be re-uploaded?
http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=nlkt
The first version in Debian does not need to be -0 or -1 anyway - as
long as "-v0.3.1.0 -sa" is used.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http:
On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 12:44 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO Pendant le temps de midi du samedi 17 mai 2008, vers 12:06, Neil
> Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait:
>
> >> Your debian version should be 0.3.1.1-1 (not -3) since this is the first
> >>
cause of a broken web
page, it is always worth checking with a sane browser like lynx (you
also don't get the ads with lynx - at least not the image ones which are
usually the most annoying anyway. I don't think many people try to block
text ads like those from Google).
--
Neil
ce you will have to continue
> to maintain privately separate packages.
That, IMHO, is a crazy request.
--
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
hitecture-specific checks in any package -
always, always check the HOST value - BUILD is almost always the wrong
variable to use.
--
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o customise the build
using DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS, dh_install will use those options, install will
not. This means that a customised build has to patch debian/rules
instead of just setting an environment variable.
--
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 17:40 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 22/05/2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> > To check the arch, always test against the HOST architecture. Native
> > builds set HOST == BUILD but if the package is ever cross-built, your
> > debian/rules must allow build
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 12:42 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > To check the arch, always test against the HOST architecture. Native
> > builds set HOST == BUILD but if the package is ever cross-built, your
> > debian/rules must allow building an AR
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 10:24 -0700, Cameron Dale wrote:
> On 5/22/08, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 21:20 -0700, Cameron Dale wrote:
> > > Unless you released 2.25-1 somewhere else, merge the unreleased 2.25-1
> > > and 2.26-1
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 15:29 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > This holds true for any architecture-specific checks in any package -
> > always, always check the HOST value - BUILD is almost always the wrong
> > variable to use.
>
>
.gz from the BTS) when he has the
time.
This has to be a new low for debian-mentors. Sigh.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 11:57 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 25 May 2008, Aanjhan R wrote:
> > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Debian has systems that alert the maintainer to new releases, so Ernesto
> > >
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 14:05 +0530, Aanjhan R wrote:
> Hi Neil!
>
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Debian has systems that alert the maintainer to new releases, so Ernesto
> > will have had a reminder already from DEHS.
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 16:37 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
>
> Just re-reading what you said:
ifneq ($(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE),$(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE))
CC=$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)-gcc
else
CC=cc
endif
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) lockrun.c -o lockrun
> ...
> > CC=cc
> &
f the library does not currently exist in
Debian then it cannot have any reverse dependencies - there cannot be
any packages that depend on a library not already in Debian.
Use apt-cache rdepends foo to find the reverse dependencies of a package
already in Debian.
--
Neil Williams
*never* advise anyone to start Debian packaging with a library.
Package at least two applications or utilities before even considering
working on a library. (By "package" I mean to the point where a sponsor
is willing to upload the package because all the packaging problems have
been fixed.)
Learning Debian packaging is a process - it can be a long process and it
will only get longer and more confusing if you start with a library.
--
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
t ?
The clarification you need is a statement from all the copyright holders
(or one who is authorised to speak on the behalf of everyone else) that
a particular licence applies to the specific files in question.
--
Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepate
On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 14:44 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> Neil Williams ha scritto:
>
> > You cannot assert that a licence applies (by patching the files to
> > declare a licence attribution) if you do not have confirmation from the
> > copyright holders of those file
On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 17:47 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> Neil Williams ha scritto:
> > Do you mean these are embedded source? Source code that already exists
> > as a separate package in Debian should not be duplicated in NEW
> > packages. Use the existing library s
On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 18:38 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> Neil Williams ha scritto:
>
> >> freemat needs some files (*.f) that are not exists as a separate package
> >> in Debian
> >
> > If those are generated files, the -dev should provide them.
> >
1 - 100 of 586 matches
Mail list logo
