On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Marc Haber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a package with a bunch of configuration files that are managed
> by my maintainer scripts and not by dpkg. I now need one of them
> (a.conf) to vanish.
>
> How do I do this in a clean way? I am thinking about the following:
>
> (1) Let the
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> You will have to test with both sarge and etch dpkg (until after etch
> releases). Colin Watson recently wrote [0] about one of the ssh bugs
> and how this was complicated for him.
>
> You have to include the logic in the preinst, since the prerm is fo
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My package (pam-keyring) FTBFS on some buildd[1] because 'kill' is
> missing. /bin/kill is part of the procps package which has a required
> priority. I thought that packages with such priority should not be
> added to build-deps...
It's n
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> one of my packages (trickle) had a problem and used to create stupid
> directories (/usr/share/man1 etc) (see #207258). this is due to a typo
> in debian/rules (shame on me)
>
> i fixed this in a new version, but i don't know how to handle the
> existing
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> This leads to the question stated in the subject: Is it an error in
> the package if it does not build correctly with umask 0007?
>
> If it is an error, is there a straightforward way to fix it, i.e. some
> magic setting in debian/rules? (/I/ did not fi
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
> > Is it in some way "mandatory" using sid as the developing and
> > packaging environment?
> >
> > I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
> > packages against stabl
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
> > With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
>
> What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
> the unstable version of a libr
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> In the upcoming version of the `emacs-goodies-el' source package, I want
> the following to happen to these bianry packages:
>
> `emacs-goodies-extra-el'
>-> removed and contents merged into `emacs-goodies-el'
>
> `debbugs-el'
>-> replaced b
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > There is not a "standard" to make a package to disappear, but there is
> > > something yo
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> As far as I can tell, a Debian package consists of a single source
> tarball and a single diff. Is this right, or have I missed something?
It's right, a Debian source package is usually distributed as a single
source and a single diff (sometimes there
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Magnus Therning wrote:
> Is one deprecated in favour of the other, or is it simply another place
> where Debian offers more options than any other distribution?
Yes, you can consider debmake deprecated.
I have the intention to kill debmake some day. Until then, I'll
apprecia
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, David Everly wrote:
> Is there some mechanism or alternative for using uupdate so that any
> upstream debian directory can be removed before patching?
Don't know about uupdate, but you are allowed to repackage the .orig.tar.gz
to exclude the upstream debian directory if it he
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How to use variables in postinst scripts?
>
> Currently, I use a variable for the upstream version with these lines in
> debian/rules:
>
> [...]
> # Get the upstream version from the changelog.
> upstream := $(shell head -1 debian/
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:15:18PM +0100, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> > i am looking for a sponsor for secure-delete, it's a small package that
> > quite some people might find usefull. from the control file:
>
> > > Description: tools to wipe files, free d
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am packaging source which builds two binary packages; however, each
> package has different build dependancies. In fact, the packages' build
> dependancies conflict.
>
> I don't think the dpkg tools have the facility to build one binary but
> not th
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> My package contains binaries using a common shared library, which is not
> intended to be used by other programs. This is a regular shared
> library, not a plugin or other object to be explicitly loaded by the
> binaries, the binaries just normally link
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
> I would like to ask advice with Python. I have a package, which depends
> on it, and previously I depended on an exact version (2.3) thus altered
> the interpreter in each file to be python2.3 instead of generic python.
> It worked, but upstr
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, MiguelGea wrote:
> Dear Mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor form the package fpdf-1.52
>
> * Package name : fpdf-1.52
> * Version : 1.52
> * License : Freeware, It allows modify it and use without
> restriction and without cost.
"Freeware" is not a license. I dou
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, MiguelGea wrote:
> Before packaging fpdf I talked with the author about this, and he told
> me to read FAQ#1:
>
> 1. What's exactly the license of FPDF? Are there any usage restrictions?
> FPDF is Freeware (it is stated at the beginning of the source file).
"Freeware" is not
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
> * Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-21 01:45:58 +0200]:
>
> > There is a python policy that you should probably read.
>
> Thanks. I have checked at http://www.debian.org/devel/ , but I coul
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Zach Garner wrote:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
Try
apt-get source hello
for an example package with less "layers".
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 22 May 1998, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
> [ ... ]
> the basic problem is that when the program was written it was set to
> store truetype fonts for the server in /usr/ttfonts
> [ ... ]
Question: Are these fonts generated (like TeX's pk fonts) or will they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 23 May 1998, Bart Warmerdam wrote:
> Where do i upload it? /home/Debian/ftp/private/project/Incoming
> because of the freeze of hamm? [...]
Yes, but not because of the freeze of hamm :-), but because that is the
upload directory for *all* uploads. An au
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, tmancill wrote:
> Do I compile twice and generate .debs for both releases with the same
> version number?
No. There is a README in bo-unstable explaining the numbering scheme.
If you read it, you will see that it is well thought, and allows
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> I am building my architecture independent packages with debhelper. As
> the field "Architecture:" of the control file has value "all", the deb
> files are named *_all.deb (as expected). On the other hand, I alwa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Ted Whalen wrote:
> This bug is assigned to my package, wm2, but as far as I can tell, it
> has nothing to do with my package. Nor can I determine which package
> it belongs to. Should I close it?
Probably not, because then the bug would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Florian Hinzmann wrote:
> 1)
> debmake or debhelper/dh_make?
Hi. This is not a dichotomy but a "trichotomy" between "debmake",
"debhelper" or "none of them".
It seems that most people think that debhelper is "better" than debmake.
Other p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Express should go in project/experimental, what's the way to upload there ?
Just put the word "experimental" in the changelog (instead of "unstable").
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 6 Jul 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > debstd is depricated, use the debhelper instead.
>
> [...] which ones are deprecated and which are supported, [...]
Interesting. Is deprecated the opposite of supported?
Wha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Shaleh wrote:
> Help! My bug reports have gone AWOL. The BTS does not display the
> correct number of bugs, nor does it show all of my bugs.
Something similar happened to me with pine packages.
Please, download the file "Maintainers" in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Luis Francisco Gonzalez wrote:
> Hi, what was it that we decided to do about bugs that were solved in new
> versions of packages only in unstable? Did we ever implement a priority
> fixed in the BTS or should I just go ahead and close it?
I
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Philip Thiem wrote:
> Hey I would wondering if by change there is a program that can make
> another program think that the root directory is another directory??? I
> have a program, I'm packaging, that has some wrapper program, that are
> compiled, but these get hardcoded val
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Sven wrote:
> do we really need that some people make money of the free software for
> it to be successful ?
I think this is not the issue. The issue is that if we do not allow people
to make money from it, then it is not free software.
--
"fc87384466a193d616da72deeadea0fd
On 1 Oct 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Martin" == Martin Bialasinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Martin> I want to make a programm version 2.0, but I want to release some
> Martin> betas before this. What version scheme should I use for the betas, so
> Martin> that dpkg recognis
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Debmake was never 100% policy conforming. Due to this lack Joey wrote
> the debhelper that reflects our policy 1:1. Thus debhelper is to be
> preferred against the other tool. However I'm not sure how much
> orphaned debmake is since I saw a recent up
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Shaleh wrote:
> debhelper is the one under active development.
Mmm, is TeX under "active" development? I heard that the latest version is
still 3.14159, is 4.0 being to be released soon? :-)
Maybe we should stop using it just because of that? ;-)
No, I don't want to open aga
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Chris Leishman wrote:
> I am about to upload a package that also requires the source to be
> uploaded (a new package). How do I go about uploading the source
> (the .orig.tar.gz) file? I did a test run of dupload, but this didn't
> seem to notice the .orig file.
I don't kno
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> 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?
Yes, because documentation should ideally match the real program.
--
"
Hi.
No, slink has not been frozen yet.
Better that way, because it is greatly broken.
Brian, what are your plans with respect to slink?
I'm glad that it has not been frozen yet. Could we please continue in the
unstable stage until some of the more broken packages are properly fixed?
--
"f634
> Any help/patch/comments?
As a work-around, you may use "dpkg-buildpackage -sa".
--
"a422c7f4f958e0c30f8f9a55b6a9b97d" (a truly random sig)
On 19 Nov 1998, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Why not, but why does debstd provide the possibilitry of modifying :
> > - /etc/aliases
> > - /etc/syslog.conf
> > - /etc/inetd.conf
> > - /etc/services
> > - /etc/inittab
> > - /etc/protocols
Hi.
Policy says:
Only packages that are tagged conflicting with each other may specify
the same file as conffile. A package may not modify a configuration
file of another package.
Since I have to modify debstd so that it does not support modifying
configuration files for other packages
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Fernando Sanchez wrote:
> I'm packaging ocaml, a ml-type language interpreter and compiler,
> and everything works ok but I have two questions, I hope quite easy to
> answer:
>
> First, to compile ocaml I need to call "make install" (in 'rules' file) in
> the following
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> The upstream sources for xplot contain a pre-compiled i386 binary (in
> case users don't want to compile themselves). The binary is not relevant
> to Debian:
>
> $ ldd xplot
> libforms.so.0.81 => /usr/local/lib/libforms.so.0.81 (0x4000b000)
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> as the original Makefile runs ldconfig. How can I correct this ?
Just modify the Makefile so that it does not run ldconfig.
--
"f9a072977084bf277db216f33cb45100" (a truly random sig)
Hi.
FYI: According to the changelog, debstd already passes -isp option to
dpkg-gencontrol since version 3.5.12 (wishlist bug #23720).
Thanks.
--
"d4d0135f848bca314003534bb89f657f" (a truly random sig)
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 1998 at 12:19:10PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > > Note that deb-make is deprecated. Have a look at the debhelper and
> > > > dh-make packages instead.
> > >
> > > Don't say that where Santiago can here you.. => He's rather defens
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Andrew Feinberg wrote:
> Also, my package is on multiple platforms. If I'm building a package for
> i386, how would I build it for the others if I don't have access to
> those types of boxen?
This is a good question.
The answer is that there are already people in Debian dedi
On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > After making my mh-book package, I got a lintian _warning_ that
> > scripts in /usr/doc were executable. I checked the upstream
> > tar.gz and the scripts were, in fact, set executable.
> >
> > So I changed my rules file to do
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> I'm interested in learning how to package pine. I've posted some
> experimental packages to http://ompages.com/debian/pkgs/pine/pine.html.
>
> I'm aware of the licensing issues, and, since I'm a law student, have
> begun correspondence with UW, join
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> VDK library which I'm packaging has 2 documentation files distributed
> separately as ps.gz. How am I supposed to package those files ? There's
> no tar.gz, just 2 compressed postscript files.
You may just create an .orig.tar.gz for them and that's al
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Ionutz Borcoman wrote:
> The licence is:
> Copyright (C) 1998 Mario Motta
> Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies if this
> manual provided that the copyright notice and this permission notice are
> preserved in all copies.
> Permission is granted to cop
Question for dpkg gurus:
It is technically possible to make package A to conflict with releases of
B earlier than "p" and also with all releases of B between "r" and "s"
but not with release "q" of B (where p < q < r < s)?
Thanks.
--
"022212d3917d9cc0dac13e25739e814a" (a truly random sig)
On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > Question for dpkg gurus:
> >
> > It is technically possible to make package A to conflict with releases of
> > B earlier than "p" and also with all releases of B betw
> > > > It is technically possible to make package A to conflict with releases
> > > > of
> > > > B earlier than "p" and also with all releases of B between "r" and "s"
> > > > but not with release "q" of B (where p < q < r < s)?
> > >
> > > AFAIK, dpkg can't even do 'all releases between r and s
On Sat, 13 Mar 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > It is technically possible to make package A to conflict with releases of
> > B earlier than "p" and also with all releases of B between "r" and "s"
> > but not with release "q" of B (where p < q < r < s)?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Could you not simply say
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, MortenI wrote:
> The mails from debian-mentors in /var/spool/mail,
> can I autosort them in some way, or do I have to
> sort them by hand?
Please read /usr/doc/procmail/QuickStart. It says:
If you have to refilter an old mail folder according to your current
~/.p
There are two different things to be considered here:
1. dpkg-source supports pristine source. Is Eloy aware of this? (I'm not
completely sure when he says that "samba_2.0.3.orig.tar.gz must untar in
samba-2.0.3.orig").
2. A CVS artifact inside a tarball is ugly. A source which is not
pristine is
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Debstd always modifies postinsts. Can't be turned off.
Regarding suidmanager support, I think if you create an empty suid
file, no automatic scan for setgid/setsid binaries would be made.
Thanks.
--
"75d356ebefdbd8d8bc673df8c907b517" (a truly random sig
The new recode 3.5 now contains a library, so following policy about
shared libraries I have splitted the main package in three: recode,
librecode0 and librecode-dev.
However, I had the "bright" idea of taking advantage of the fact that
recode depends on librecode0 by making /usr/doc/recode to be
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Joe Drew wrote:
> Something that's been going through my mind recently is the
> following:
> Say I had package foo, and all was going well. Then, upstream,
> they change the package name to 'bar,' and I decide to go along with
> it.
> How could I go about making it automated
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> I'm packaging a snapshot of XTide, version 2.2dev dated
> 1999/10/17. The date matters because the dev version may change
> without changing version number before 2.2 is released.
>
> I can't call it xtide_2.2dev19991017-1 because upgrades won't
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > > The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> > > >
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Chanop Silpa-Anan wrote:
> During a debuild of my own package I've this complaint from lintian
>
> Now running lintian...
> internal error: dpkg-source didn't report unpack directory
> internal error: could not unpack package to desired level: No such file or
> directory
> N:
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> [...] Then if Ian ever wants to pick up the project again, he has
> the option of helping with the current version, or going back to his
> old one, with all of the RC bugs still open.
It may be worth to mention that Ian Jackson declared recently that he
On Mon, 8 May 2000, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> is there a better way to get mails out of the BTS than cut&paste? This
> would be especially useful for mails with binary attachments.
Yes, you can send the mail server ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) a message
like this:
send-detail
stop
and then it will mail you
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > is there a better way to get mails out of the BTS than cut&paste? This
> > > would be especially useful for mails with binary attachments.
> >
> > Yes, you can send the mail server (
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Jochen Voss wrote:
> last week I prepared a new package for the gnome-utils package
> and asked for a sponsor. As nobody volunteered this one was
> not uploaded to the server.
>
> Now I did some additional fixes (add a man page, ...) and
> want to prepare a new package. Shou
James Troup wrote:
> The canonical source for the debian keyring _is_[2] kerying.debian.org
> (via anon-rsync); period. The package is a convenience, nothing
> more[3].
A package which is horribly outdated is everything but a "convenience".
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > James Troup wrote:
> > > The canonical source for the debian keyring _is_[2] kerying.debian.org
> > > (via anon-rsync); period. The package is a convenience, nothing
> > > more[3].
> >
> > A packag
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jason Lunz wrote:
> I'm packaging a program for multiple distributions that build-depends on
> autoconf 2.50. [...]
You might better avoid this if you can. Packages made by autoconf do
not usually depend on autoconf for the build, that's why the configure
script is shipped wi
Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> (b) it's dubious whether another potato point release will be done at all.
How can you be so certain about the dubiousness of that? :-)
We should consider *all* the possibilities, including (but not limited to)
that the release of woody will be delayed and there will be
On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> My next (new for unstable) package, yardradius conflicts with radiusd-cistron
> and
> radiusd-livingston (and provides the same services - radiusd).
> Should I open a couple of bug reps for inclusion of the new package
> within control files of
Drew Parsons wrote:
> depends-on-essential-package-without-using-version [...]
>
> I can't find much in Debian policy about this, so I'd like to ask, what
> does this error mean, and why is it an error?
Many packages have a Depends line similar to this one:
Depends: [...], debianutils (>= 1.6)
d
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am packaging source which builds two binary packages; however, each
> package has different build dependancies. In fact, the packages' build
> dependancies conflict.
>
> I don't think the dpkg tools have the facility to build one binary but
> not th
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> My package contains binaries using a common shared library, which is not
> intended to be used by other programs. This is a regular shared
> library, not a plugin or other object to be explicitly loaded by the
> binaries, the binaries just normally link
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
> I would like to ask advice with Python. I have a package, which depends
> on it, and previously I depended on an exact version (2.3) thus altered
> the interpreter in each file to be python2.3 instead of generic python.
> It worked, but upstr
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, MiguelGea wrote:
> Dear Mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor form the package fpdf-1.52
>
> * Package name : fpdf-1.52
> * Version : 1.52
> * License : Freeware, It allows modify it and use without
> restriction and without cost.
"Freeware" is not a license. I dou
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, MiguelGea wrote:
> Before packaging fpdf I talked with the author about this, and he told
> me to read FAQ#1:
>
> 1. What's exactly the license of FPDF? Are there any usage restrictions?
> FPDF is Freeware (it is stated at the beginning of the source file).
"Freeware" is not
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
> * Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-21 01:45:58 +0200]:
>
> > There is a python policy that you should probably read.
>
> Thanks. I have checked at http://www.debian.org/devel/ , but I coul
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Magnus Therning wrote:
> Is one deprecated in favour of the other, or is it simply another place
> where Debian offers more options than any other distribution?
Yes, you can consider debmake deprecated.
I have the intention to kill debmake some day. Until then, I'll
apprecia
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, David Everly wrote:
> Is there some mechanism or alternative for using uupdate so that any
> upstream debian directory can be removed before patching?
Don't know about uupdate, but you are allowed to repackage the .orig.tar.gz
to exclude the upstream debian directory if it he
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How to use variables in postinst scripts?
>
> Currently, I use a variable for the upstream version with these lines in
> debian/rules:
>
> [...]
> # Get the upstream version from the changelog.
> upstream := $(shell head -1 debian/
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Zach Garner wrote:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
Try
apt-get source hello
for an example package with less "layers".
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> Renaming the packages now will create a minor nuisance: the small
> number of users of the package will have to learn a new name for the
> package, ftp-masters will have to remove these packages that they just
> approved, and the vips packages will have
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> The recent thread on names of library packages on debian-devel made me
> decide that I made a mistake in naming one of my packages.
> Specifically, the vips7.10 source package creates four binary
> packages: libvips7.10, libvips7.10-dev, libvips7.10-too
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > This way, "apt-get upgrade" will install libvips-doc without requiring
> > "apt-get dist-upgrade", and this will be done automatically and
> > without user intervention,
>
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Christian Hammers wrote:
> I'm building a private(!) package with files in /usr/local/bin for a host
> where /usr/local/ is a symlink. Whenever I remove the package the symlink
> gets removed by dpkg although there are plenty of (non-Debian maintained)
> files in /usr/local
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Hi, I have a question about how to handle the upgrade of one of my
> packages to a new upstream package.
>
> I am currently the maintainer of the package 'smurf', which is now no
> longer maintained upstream. For various reasons, upstream has moved to
> a
On Sun, 1 May 2005, John Hedges wrote:
> I've incorporated a patch[1] into splay and would be very grateful if
> someone would check over the new package[2] and, if all is well, do the
> upload thing for me.
>
> John
>
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=306983
Hmm, I would n
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
> hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to use
> debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
The current best practise is to not assume that everybody wants to use
deb
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'm surprised that people have consistently read "submit patches" as
> somehow bypassing the maintainer, or telling him what to do. To whom
> would I be submitting the patches, if not the maintainer?
To the maintainer, via the BTS as a wishlist bug. That's
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> A short question: I have a package, where I run autopoint during build
> process. Now the situation is, that gettext only suggests, but not
> depends on cvs. So without adding cvs to 'Build-Depends:', the build
> fails in a chrooted environment (pbuilde
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Luis Francisco Gonzalez wrote:
> Hi,
> I have the folowing problem. I am using debstd to build two pacakges,
> dmalloc1 and dmalloc1-dev out of one source. Now the source pacakge is
> called dmalloc.
>
> When called, debstd uses dmalloc rat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a wrote:
> the opportunity to check them in few environments. They are available at
>
> ftp://dat.etsit.upm.es/pub/vrml/browsers/Vrwave/vrwave-0.8-1.deb
> and
> ftp://dat.etsit.upm.es/pub/vrml/browsers/Vrweb/li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> A short question regarding version numbers:
>
> swig is currently in experimental with a Debian release 1.1.b5-1. The
> current upstream release is 1.1p3. For dpkg, 1.1.b5 > 1.1p3. In this
> case, should one use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> To build sendmail, I used: "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot" from my
> normal id (cowboy).
>
> Everything seemed to go fine except for a few items:
> 1) Needing root to rm debian/tmp (everthing was owned by cowboy.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> look at similar packages:
> mirror is in net
> lftp (which has a mirror command) is in net
> wget (which can _also_ mirror with ftp) is in web
Mmm, maybe wget should be in net also :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Joel Klecker:
> deb-make creates rules files that use debstd, which doesn't offer much
> control over what it does (not to mention that it sometimes violates
> policy).
Please report all debstd policy violations through the bug system.
I do not advocate for the
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
