* Joe Nahmias ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I would really like to have this package formally adopted and using the
> latest upstream version before sarge is released. Won't anyone sponsor
> me?!?
Yeah, alright.
> Package is available at mentors.debian.net.
I'll look into it and let you know.
* Jan Wagemakers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I have created a .deb for picprog :
[...]
> I am looking for tips on how I can improve this package (I don't have much
> experience with packaging) and someone who likes to sponsor it.
For starters you should say what license it's under when you reque
* Arnaud Vandyck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Description: internationalization library for java
What license?
Stephen
pgpY755TX6Tn6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* Thomas -Balu- Walter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Homepage: http://camsource.sourceforge.net/
This looks pretty interesting..
> Package:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/camsource/
>
> The package was discussed on debian-mentors mailing list already, so I
> th
* Thomas -Balu- Walter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:06:54PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Thomas -Balu- Walter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Homepage: http://camsource.sourceforge.net/
> > This looks pretty interesting..
> [...]
>
* Silke Reimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm looking for a sponsor for gdal:
Sounds very interesting... What license is it under?
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Adam Kessel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I applied to become a Debian Developer back in June or July. My last
> communication with my application manager was my response to the tasks
> and skills questions in mid-September. I haven't heard anything since
> then.
>
> I'm wondering if I should j
* Frank K?ster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It seems you are packaging a library - you might want to have a look at
>
> http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
Take this with more than a grain of salt- it's imperfect to say the
least. First off- the section about
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken.
>
> 940 .la files on my system. Report bugs?
[...]
> So
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
> > to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it
> > proba
* Matt Brubeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > We shouldn't be shipping or using static libraries.
>
> Why not? I know we shouldn't be linking to static libraries in our
> packaged software, but having the static libraries available is
> i
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to
> resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
> Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked
> binary, copy it onto a floppy and run this after
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging
> > offense.
>
> Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of
> the more exotic ports come to fruition.
>
> "Debian Solaris" anyone? :o)
I'm not 100%
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> If you are creating a library package, you should ship the shared
> library (and SONAME symlink) in the libxxxN package and the static
> library, name-only symlink *AND* .la file (if relevant) in the
> libxxx[N]-dev package.
Right, on Debian shipp
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not 100% sure but I actually thought that's what OpenLDAP used
> > (libltdl) and it works just fine w/o the stupid .la files.
>
> Have you actually *used* libltdl
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040322 21:14]:
> > Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
> > administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the
> > case these days.
>
>
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:26:39PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >Boot Knoppix or similar from a CD. PCs today are more often installed
> >with CDs than floppies anyway. That's really a pretty poor reason.
>
> I
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Consider this situation:
Situations can be derived for anything. :)
> > Joe Average installs Debian which *handles* all of the dependencies.
> > Come on, this isn't even a reason to keep them.
>
> What about users who don't run Debian, or who don't run
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040323 00:29]:
> > * Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040322 21:14]:
> > > > Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of
* Nelson A. de Oliveira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he
> allows the inclusion of the program on Debian.
Based on his words, it looks like it'd be at *best* non-free. It
certainly could not be included in Debian proper. This is, i
* Kevin B. McCarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > I just had another thought -- make a -1 revision with an empty diff. Weird,
> > but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work...
>
> Why would the diff be empty? I would think it should contain the debian
> subdi
* Brian Sutherland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I agree with this. Really, debian-native packages are debian-specific
> > packages. I would strongly encourage you to *not* make this a
> > debian-native packag
* Brian Sutherland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:08:48PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:48:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > .so files? Should it be libschoolbell and libschoolbell-dev?
> >
> > Indeed
* Nelson A. de Oliveira ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he
> allows the inclusion of the program on Debian.
Based on his words, it looks like it'd be at *best* non-free. It
certainly could not be included in Debian proper. This is, i
* Kevin B. McCarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> > I just had another thought -- make a -1 revision with an empty diff. Weird,
> > but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work...
>
> Why would the diff be empty? I would think it should contain the debian
> subdi
* Brian Sutherland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I agree with this. Really, debian-native packages are debian-specific
> > packages. I would strongly encourage you to *not* make this a
> > debian-native packag
* Brian Sutherland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 11:08:48PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:48:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > .so files? Should it be libschoolbell and libschoolbell-dev?
> >
> > Indeed
* Joe Nahmias ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I would really like to have this package formally adopted and using the
> latest upstream version before sarge is released. Won't anyone sponsor
> me?!?
Yeah, alright.
> Package is available at mentors.debian.net.
I'll look into it and let you know.
* Jan Wagemakers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I have created a .deb for picprog :
[...]
> I am looking for tips on how I can improve this package (I don't have much
> experience with packaging) and someone who likes to sponsor it.
For starters you should say what license it's under when you reque
* Arnaud Vandyck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Description: internationalization library for java
What license?
Stephen
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* Thomas -Balu- Walter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Homepage: http://camsource.sourceforge.net/
This looks pretty interesting..
> Package:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/camsource/
>
> The package was discussed on debian-mentors mailing list already, so I
> th
* Thomas -Balu- Walter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:06:54PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Thomas -Balu- Walter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Homepage: http://camsource.sourceforge.net/
> > This looks pretty interesting..
> [...]
>
* Silke Reimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm looking for a sponsor for gdal:
Sounds very interesting... What license is it under?
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Adam Kessel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I applied to become a Debian Developer back in June or July. My last
> communication with my application manager was my response to the tasks
> and skills questions in mid-September. I haven't heard anything since
> then.
>
> I'm wondering if I should j
* Frank K?ster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It seems you are packaging a library - you might want to have a look at
>
> http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html
Take this with more than a grain of salt- it's imperfect to say the
least. First off- the section about
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken.
>
> 940 .la files on my system. Report bugs?
[...]
> So
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people
> > to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it
> > proba
* Matt Brubeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > We shouldn't be shipping or using static libraries.
>
> Why not? I know we shouldn't be linking to static libraries in our
> packaged software, but having the static libraries available is
> i
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to
> resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with
> Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked
> binary, copy it onto a floppy and run this after
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging
> > offense.
>
> Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of
> the more exotic ports come to fruition.
>
> "Debian Solaris" anyone? :o)
I'm not 100%
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> If you are creating a library package, you should ship the shared
> library (and SONAME symlink) in the libxxxN package and the static
> library, name-only symlink *AND* .la file (if relevant) in the
> libxxx[N]-dev package.
Right, on Debian shipp
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not 100% sure but I actually thought that's what OpenLDAP used
> > (libltdl) and it works just fine w/o the stupid .la files.
>
> Have you actually *used* libltdl
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040322 21:14]:
> > Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local
> > administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the
> > case these days.
>
>
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:26:39PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >Boot Knoppix or similar from a CD. PCs today are more often installed
> >with CDs than floppies anyway. That's really a pretty poor reason.
>
> I
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Consider this situation:
Situations can be derived for anything. :)
> > Joe Average installs Debian which *handles* all of the dependencies.
> > Come on, this isn't even a reason to keep them.
>
> What about users who don't run Debian, or who don't run
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040323 00:29]:
> > * Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040322 21:14]:
> > > > Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of
46 matches
Mail list logo
