Re: RFS: gthumb (updated and adopted package)

David Paleino skrev: Il giorno Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:02:58 +0100 David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: Please don't upload it yet. I've just found out a minor issue during build: after svn-buildpackage the sources are left modified. Looking at it right now. Ok, I can't solve this, thus a

Re: RFS: gthumb (updated and adopted package)

David Paleino skrev: I'm not recreating the tarball. The first times I was making packages, my sponsors told me that the result of "debuild clean" (or fakeroot debian/rules clean) had to be the same as the original tarball unpacked + debian/. Is this wrong? I'd qualify that somewhat. It's certa

Need some advice on udev

Hi mentors. I am (nominally) the maintainer of the awesfx package. Admittedly, I haven't been bothered to do anything substantial with it for a while (not since I lost my own SoundBlaster 32, long story). But now, since I have some time, I figured I should at least fix some issues with it, ev

Re: alpine_1.0+dfsg-2_source.changes REJECTED

Asheesh Laroia skrev: others here on debian-mentors and on debian-devel. I think "Require binaries and throw them away" is a very good strategy. It seems there is fairly wide consensus that having the buildds build every package is a good thing. Man, source-only uploads would literally save

Re: RFH: liblicense: dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: couldn't find library

Asheesh Laroia skrev: Naturally, I'm probably doing something wrong - but I have no idea what it is. I think that the soname and library package name are correct, for one thing. Can someone perhaps help? If you use dh_shlibdeps, you can try this: dh_shlibdeps -Lliblicense1 -ldebian/liblicen

Re: RFS: ia32-libs split packages

Goswin von Brederlow skrev: Hi, the ia32-libs package will be split into seperate source packages (95 alltogether). Since my comaintainer is currently bussy I'm looking for a sponsor for the first wave of those packages. The main converter package and the 5 packages that are ia64 only in ia32-li

Re: RFS: ia32-libs-tools and others

Goswin von Brederlow skrev: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ia32-libs-tools". Since I assume this'll eventually help my Wine package, I'll take care of it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE

Re: Packaging without Makefile

Dominik George skrev: $ dh-make $ cd debian/ edit/copy in control, copyright, changelog and edit rules remove unwanted files $ cd ../ $ dpkg-buildpackage Sounds easy - but how do I get it to copy my one single file? I'd say with the "dh_install" part of your rules fil

Re: the quality of Debian's diff.gz

George Danchev skrev: Very good, but please make these easily visible/readable to the rest via diff.gz Oh no, not again... This was already flam^H^H^H^Hdebated on debian-devel. I believe debian-mentors is where new maintainers learn current best practices, not where *new* practices are develo

Re: the quality of Debian's diff.gz

George Danchev skrev: I don't see any new practices being developed here, Debian's diff.gz exists from the Debian packaging system's day 1 and abusing it prophesies no good. Debian's diff.gz that has existed from day 1 is *one* all-encompossing diff. You're requesting shipping *multiple* sepa

Re: how to solve a non pic code in an shlib due to assembly code

Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel skrev: > Is someone on this mailing have the assembly skills to help me, and the > upstream, solve this problem. > > I already contact the main upstream but it does not know how to > solve this. The idea of position-independent code (PIC) is that no absolute memory offsets

Re: how to solve a non pic code in an shlib due to assembly code

Goswin von Brederlow skrev: > Ove Kaaven writes: > >> However, if they can't or won't fix it, there's *some* good news. In >> general, shared libraries must be compiled as PIC because on some >> platforms, the library just won't work properly if y

Re: RFS: the mingw-w64 toolchain

Den 02. april 2011 23:16, skrev Stephen Kitt: > The first strategy would allow the packages to make their way into the > archive sooner, but I'm not sure what the FTP Masters' reaction would be to a > NEW package relying on an "Arch: all" package to avoid bootstrapping itself. They might be unders

Re: Multiarch question

Den 09. juni 2011 12:18, skrev Michael Wild: > Hi all > > I have a question concerning multiarch [1,2]. From what I read it is > conceivable to have something like this on a system: > > /usr/{lib,include}/i386-linux-gnu > /usr/{lib,include}/x86_64-linux-gnu > /usr/{lib,include}/x86_64-kfreebsd-gn

Re: When is DAM approval supposed to happen?

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:33:11AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > It's already been a month and counting for DAM approval of my application. > > I'd like to close some bugs with high severity on my packages, but > > the fact that I do

Re: When is DAM approval supposed to happen?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > I've actually just taken a look at the applicants list > and it appears that today the DAM has > apprently started creating accounts again today. Unfortunately, the six > lucky people have apparently jumped the queue, an

deleting uploads via queue

I've packaged and uploaded gmime packages (libgmime0 and libgmime-dev), but since auric was down, I had uploaded it into the queue daemon on samosa. Now the daemon installed my stuff into ftp-master (auric), but I just discovered that I put the wrong section into libgmime0 (it should be libs, but i

Re: deleting uploads via queue

On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:46:26PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > I've packaged and uploaded gmime packages (libgmime0 and libgmime-dev), > > but since auric was down, I had uploaded it into the queue daemon on > > samosa. N

package naming

Are there any docs with guidelines on package naming? I need to package some dependencies, one of which is the MetaKit portable embedded database library (http://www.equi4.com/metakit/). The build process gives me libmk4.so.0.0.0, libmk4tcl.so.0.0.0, and optionally libmk4py.so.0.0.0 (they don't see

Re: package naming

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ingo Saitz wrote: > MoiN > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 04:30:32PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > Are there any docs with guidelines on package naming? > > See the packaging manual, Section 11.3. There's no such section in the packaging manual. But

Re: Policy and conffile editing

On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you really think you want to change this automatically, you can ask the > squid maintainer to remove /etc/squid.conf from his conffiles. If it's necessary to remove it from conffiles in order to edit it from a script in /usr/sbin, then both sgml

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:26:55PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will > > only > > overwrite the existing ve

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in > > > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they > > &g

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > > and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install > > > them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be > > >

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:23:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > > It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed, > > /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists. > > ...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete t

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > > No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files". > > > > Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I kn

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > > > > > Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in > > > /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? > > &g

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > > > I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started > > talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the > > suf

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started > > talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the > > sufficiently argum

Re: building binary-only package with different name?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Peter van Rossum wrote: > Yes, of course, and that is what I did. But the actual question was: > how do I get dpkg-buildpackage to give the potato version a different > *name*? Just renaming the files gives problems with the signature on > the .changes/.dsc files. If you're

Re: building binary-only package with different name?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Peter van Rossum wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:56:29PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > If you're just going to put these on the webpage, why would you even need > > the .changes file? (And the .dsc is only for the source package, so you > > don&

Re: Library packaging

On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Sam Couter wrote: > I tried to use the electric-fence and dmalloc packages as examples to > follow. Neither are named libwhatever, both contain shared objects. dmalloc > has no .so symlink, just libdmalloc.so.4.2 or something. electric-fence does > have a .so symlink, but it's

Re: variable path names in manpages

On Thu, 10 May 2001, Manfred Wassmann wrote: > I'm currently writing a manpage which is to be used in a Debian package, > but not exclusively. To be most flexible I want to use variables for path > names that are expanded at build time. Is there any standard or > recommended way implement this?

Re: using conditionals in autoconf/automake

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > I need help with stuff regarding a configure.in and a Makefile.am, I'm > stucked trying to find a way to make the 'make install' command > conditionally install some files. Well, here's what one of my projects do: configure.in: ... AC_CHECK_LI

Re: Fwd: ITP: glib2, gtk2, inti

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Michèl Alexandre Salim wrote: > > IANAD yet but wanting to get up to speed on the > > upcoming GNOME 2 platform, I wanted to start > > programming in Gtk+ 1.3.x / Inti. They are not > > available as Debian packages so far so I guess I > > will > > package them myself. > > > >

Re: license question and problems

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Muhammad Hussain Yusuf wrote: > The license for babel is: > > > This software is provided on an "as is" basis, and without warranty of > any kind, including but not limited to any implied warranty of > merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. > > In no event

Re: Conflict with debian/files

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Brett Cundal wrote: > I'm using dh_movefiles, which uses a package file called > ".files", or "files" which applies to the main package only. This > appears to conflict with (I think) dpkg-genchanges, which clobbers > debian/files with some information about the built package

Re: Conflict with debian/files

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Brett Cundal wrote: > That's correct, except dh_movefiles will look for debian/files whether you > want it to or not... if there's no debian/mainpackage.files it will try > debian/files which will be present after a build and will cause problems on > the next build... Hmm. O

library soversion

I have a library package at version 2.01, and the soversion in it is 0.0.0 (seems upstream hadn't heard about library versioning). Now, I'm considering packaging a new upstream version (2.3.4, still in prerelease though), but they *still* haven't heard about library versioning, so compiling the new

Re: binary-all packaging

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Robert Millan wrote: > # Build architecture-independent files here. > binary-indep: build install > # We have nothing to do by default. > > # Build architecture-dependent files here. > binary-arch: build install Where's all the commands to build the package? Try something

Re: i can't find my /etc/*.conf files

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Pratik Sinha wrote: > i tried packaging cups To my knowledge, cups is already packaged, isn't it? Why not check out the existing packaging then?

Re: When is DAM approval supposed to happen?

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:33:11AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > It's already been a month and counting for DAM approval of my application. > > I'd like to close some bugs with high severity on my packages, but > > the fact that I d

Re: When is DAM approval supposed to happen?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > I've actually just taken a look at the applicants list > and it appears that today the DAM has > apprently started creating accounts again today. Unfortunately, the six > lucky people have apparently jumped the queue, a

deleting uploads via queue

I've packaged and uploaded gmime packages (libgmime0 and libgmime-dev), but since auric was down, I had uploaded it into the queue daemon on samosa. Now the daemon installed my stuff into ftp-master (auric), but I just discovered that I put the wrong section into libgmime0 (it should be libs, but

Re: deleting uploads via queue

On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:46:26PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > I've packaged and uploaded gmime packages (libgmime0 and libgmime-dev), > > but since auric was down, I had uploaded it into the queue daemon on > > samosa. N

package naming

Are there any docs with guidelines on package naming? I need to package some dependencies, one of which is the MetaKit portable embedded database library (http://www.equi4.com/metakit/). The build process gives me libmk4.so.0.0.0, libmk4tcl.so.0.0.0, and optionally libmk4py.so.0.0.0 (they don't se

Re: package naming

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ingo Saitz wrote: > MoiN > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 04:30:32PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > Are there any docs with guidelines on package naming? > > See the packaging manual, Section 11.3. There's no such section in the packaging manual. But

Re: Policy and conffile editing

On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you really think you want to change this automatically, you can ask the > squid maintainer to remove /etc/squid.conf from his conffiles. If it's necessary to remove it from conffiles in order to edit it from a script in /usr/sbin, then both sgm

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:26:55PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only > > overwrite the existing versio

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > > > In the current crafty (17.13-3) these files are conffiles (look in > > > > debian/conffiles or debian/crafty.conffiles), which means that they will only >

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:43:03AM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > > and the user would be insane to request it... perhaps you should install > > > them to doc/crafty/examples, and use postinst to check if they should be > >

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:23:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > > It does not violate 13.3 because at the time the package is newly installed, > > /usr/share/doc/ppp/examples/* exists. > > ...so the system administrator won't get a chance to delete

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:27:41PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > > No it isn't. They are being treated as "configuration files". > > > > Nothing in doc/ can be tagged as configuration files, as far as I kn

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > > > > > Where in the goddamned hell did you interpret that I said files in > > > /usr/share/doc/* should be included in conffiles ?!??!?!? > > &g

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Michael Beattie wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > > > I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started > > talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the > > suf

Re: keeping files from one version to the other.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:48:06PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > I talked about the doc section of policy (13.3), Julian Gilbey started > > talking about config files; hence the logical implication for the > > sufficiently argum

Re: building binary-only package with different name?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Peter van Rossum wrote: > Yes, of course, and that is what I did. But the actual question was: > how do I get dpkg-buildpackage to give the potato version a different > *name*? Just renaming the files gives problems with the signature on > the .changes/.dsc files. If you're

Re: building binary-only package with different name?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Peter van Rossum wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:56:29PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote: > > If you're just going to put these on the webpage, why would you even need > > the .changes file? (And the .dsc is only for the source package, so you > > don&

Re: Library packaging

On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Sam Couter wrote: > I tried to use the electric-fence and dmalloc packages as examples to > follow. Neither are named libwhatever, both contain shared objects. dmalloc > has no .so symlink, just libdmalloc.so.4.2 or something. electric-fence does > have a .so symlink, but it'

Re: variable path names in manpages

On Thu, 10 May 2001, Manfred Wassmann wrote: > I'm currently writing a manpage which is to be used in a Debian package, > but not exclusively. To be most flexible I want to use variables for path > names that are expanded at build time. Is there any standard or > recommended way implement this

Re: using conditionals in autoconf/automake

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > I need help with stuff regarding a configure.in and a Makefile.am, I'm > stucked trying to find a way to make the 'make install' command > conditionally install some files. Well, here's what one of my projects do: configure.in: ... AC_CHECK_L

Re: Fwd: ITP: glib2, gtk2, inti

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Michèl Alexandre Salim wrote: > > IANAD yet but wanting to get up to speed on the > > upcoming GNOME 2 platform, I wanted to start > > programming in Gtk+ 1.3.x / Inti. They are not > > available as Debian packages so far so I guess I > > will > > package them myself. > > >

Re: license question and problems

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Muhammad Hussain Yusuf wrote: > The license for babel is: > > > This software is provided on an "as is" basis, and without warranty of > any kind, including but not limited to any implied warranty of > merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. > > In no even

Re: Conflict with debian/files

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Brett Cundal wrote: > I'm using dh_movefiles, which uses a package file called > ".files", or "files" which applies to the main package only. This > appears to conflict with (I think) dpkg-genchanges, which clobbers > debian/files with some information about the built packag

Re: Conflict with debian/files

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Brett Cundal wrote: > That's correct, except dh_movefiles will look for debian/files whether you > want it to or not... if there's no debian/mainpackage.files it will try > debian/files which will be present after a build and will cause problems on > the next build... Hmm.

library soversion

I have a library package at version 2.01, and the soversion in it is 0.0.0 (seems upstream hadn't heard about library versioning). Now, I'm considering packaging a new upstream version (2.3.4, still in prerelease though), but they *still* haven't heard about library versioning, so compiling the ne

Re: binary-all packaging

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Robert Millan wrote: > # Build architecture-independent files here. > binary-indep: build install > # We have nothing to do by default. > > # Build architecture-dependent files here. > binary-arch: build install Where's all the commands to build the package? Try something

strange problems with testing

I want to fix bug #106690, which only exists in the testing distribution, not in the unstable distribution. (I admit that it's probably partly my fault that the bug had a chance of occurring in the first place, I should have added some Depends or Conflicts lines or something, but now I can't fix i

Re: Tight versions depends

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Jeff Bailey wrote: > I'm having some trouble I can't seem to find the answer to. Mailutils > creates both 'mailutils-pop3d', and 'libmailutils0'. The two need to > tightly depend on one another, since the ABI hasn't stabilized yet. > > In my control file I have: > > Depe

Re: Compiling C++ without -g

On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 03:00:41PM +0100, Will Newton wrote: > > > Is there a way to prevent autoconf from appending "-g" to every g++ command > > line? I really want to reduce the diskspace and CPU time required to build my > > package, but autocon

strange problems with testing

I want to fix bug #106690, which only exists in the testing distribution, not in the unstable distribution. (I admit that it's probably partly my fault that the bug had a chance of occurring in the first place, I should have added some Depends or Conflicts lines or something, but now I can't fix it

Re: Tight versions depends

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Jeff Bailey wrote: > I'm having some trouble I can't seem to find the answer to. Mailutils > creates both 'mailutils-pop3d', and 'libmailutils0'. The two need to > tightly depend on one another, since the ABI hasn't stabilized yet. > > In my control file I have: > > Depen

Re: Compiling C++ without -g

On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 03:00:41PM +0100, Will Newton wrote: > > > Is there a way to prevent autoconf from appending "-g" to every g++ command > > line? I really want to reduce the diskspace and CPU time required to build > > my > > package, but aut

Re: How can I upload package into woody?

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Takashi Okamoto wrote: > Hi, > > I'm very shameful that I can't upload my package into woody. Don't be, nobody except the release manager and security team can. New packages and normal updates must go into sid (unstable). > When I used stable instead of woody, I got same r