why evolution is not installable ?

g a software? My current understanding is that package should be build against currently available pacakges. Is that incorrect ? I repeat the point here is not evolution. I have already see that with others packages. Thanks, Christophe -- Christophe Barbé Software Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

dh_movefiles

eral thing like 'dh_movefiles package-dev' but nothing help. I've the two files package-dev.(files|dirs) in the debian directory. I can certainly use DH_COMPAT=2 but I would prefer to use dh_movefiles correctly. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint:

Re: dh_movefiles

p://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God. msg05264/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: dh_movefiles : SOLVED

Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God. msg05265/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

including full source code in upload

Section for source files dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload ... dpkg-buildpackage: full upload; Debian-native package (full source is included) Other problem, I got the following message : dh_gencontrol -pgphoto2 dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:De

Re: including full source code in upload

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Christophe, > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:49:49AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and > > that I intend to become a maintener

Re: including full source code in upload

obody want to do it. They have completly rewritten gphoto2 from scratch and ported drivers. > Chris > -- > Chris Halls | Frankfurt, Germany Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein, On Science msg05284/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: including full source code in upload

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:13:30PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > You have to rename the original tarball to > gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack. > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3. You mean I should only rename it ? Christophe --

Re: including full source code in upload

6.changes gphoto2-dev_2.0beta3-0.1_i386.deb gphoto2_2.0beta3-0.1_i386.deb As you can see there are two tar.gz, the upstream one (renamed as you told me) and the full source. I've missed something. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A

Re: including full source code in upload

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:08:02AM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3. > >

Re: including full source code in upload

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:52:39AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3. > > > >

Re: including full source code in upload : SOLVED

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote: > Hey guys, > > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory: > > gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz > > Yes, it has to be gphoto2_2.0b

Re: including full source code in upload : SOLVED

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:09:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > > > > > christophe barbé <[

Re: gphoto2 (WAS: RE: including full source code in upload)

; YA > Is it not a upstream choice ? But this package include a command-line frontend. Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) : gphoto2: command-line front-end libgphoto2 : libraries libgphoto2-dev : to build others front-ends. And perhaps a doc package but it

Re: gphoto2 (WAS: RE: including full source code in upload)

;t understand your question. Could you reformulate your question? Christophe > > regards, > junichi > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer > GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- Christophe Barbé <[

Re: dh_movefiles : SOLVED

On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 06:26:40PM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:35:14AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > Shame on me. > > I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell. > > Then my DH_COMPAT was not set. > > P

version number issue

le to do later 2.0beta4-1.0 ? Am I right ? Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Cats seem go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for what you want. --Joseph Wood Krutch msg05333/p

New Maintainer Application

ready and a sponsor. And I will get a signature next week at the LinuxWord NY. Can I apply now to start the process or should I really wait for the sig? Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E People that hat

Re: New Maintainer Application

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:11:26PM +, Daniel Silverstone wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 10:04:25AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > Can I apply now to start the process or should I really wait for the sig? > > Start your application now so that FrontDesk have time to a

shlibs explaination

built? What I've missed ? Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann msg0539

Re: shlibs explaination

path for libgphoto2.so.0 dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: could not find path for libgphoto2_port.so.0 Christophe On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 06:04:25PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > I need some explanations on how to use correctly shlibs. > > I have a package which produces >

Re: shlibs explaination

LIBRARY_PATH. Ok It does the trick. Thanks, Christophe > > -- > - mdz > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG Fing

upstream numbering scheme debian compliant ?

... 2.1 Is there a better way ? Thanks, Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Re: upstream numbering scheme debian compliant ?

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:35:27AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5. > > For the final release 2

Re: upstream numbering scheme debian compliant ?

the upstream choice to call it gphoto2. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Cats are rather delicate creatures and they are subject to a good many ailments, but I never heard of one who suffered from

is this license DFSG compliant ?

t in the product > documentation would be appreciated but is not required. > > 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and > must not be misrepresented as being the original software. > > 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source >

Re: is this license DFSG compliant ?

On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 05:51:21PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hello Christophe, > > On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 04:53:52PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > Is the following license DFSG compliant ? > > I think that it is with the clause 4 of the DFSG but I would like to be

gpg key validity question

-- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein, On Science msg06045/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: gpg key validity question

2002 at 09:40:29AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 10:04:20AM -0400, christophe barbé wrote: > > > I wonder if it is acceptable to sign a key from someone that : > > > - I meet him personnaly and saw his ID > > - I saw him in a public meeting in a s

Re: gpg key validity question

s key as-is ? In my understanding I can but that mean that the NM process is flawless in this regard and is going to reject his key. Christophe > > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8

Re: gpg key validity question

riously :) So you understand my problem. You think the NM process is flawless in this regard. Do you think that with all the verifications I have done, I can sign his key and by this way indicate that I know that this key belong to the well known person. Christophe > > Steve Langase

Re: gpg key validity question

rom) I believe it is harder to fake an ID but it's still possible. I consider the ID to be ONLY a part of the verification process. I believe that someone who signs a key of someone he knows well after exchanging crypted email give you a stronger proof that someone that sign a key simply

Re: how to package gpgp again

u?) takes up upstream maintainership, maybe it is still > better for its users to migrate to seahorse. They can do this at their > own pace, of course, as nobody will rip the old gpgp package from > their harddisk. Last time I checked (It was not yesterday), gpa was better than seahorse. Ch

Re: how to package gpgp again

On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 01:26:39AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote: > On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 10:58:06 -0400, > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Last time I checked (It was not yesterday), gpa was better than > > seahorse. > I tested gpa 0.4.2-2 and it took mor

dinstall problem

r authentication failed for user 'christophe' I looks like the script can't find my login in a database. I guess it could be because I was promoted dd 2 weeks ago but everything else works with my new dd ID. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrin

Re: dinstall problem

In fact I was wodering what was the purpose of the output (that I never saw). Christophe > > -- > James -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There's no sense in being precise when you don't ev

Re: lintian: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath

ibrary used by my package (the rpath was in the output of something-config --libs IIRC) so the fix was simple. I also remember a libtool hack where you need to define a libtool_is_a_fool variable (search the archive). My advise : don't use chrpath. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL P

looking for a TeX guy to (help to) package PassiveTeX

something is still not right (perhaps not in this package) and he is not a TeXpert (and is already busy). http://www.braincells.com/debian/passivetex/ I am looking for someone to package it or help me (= explain me) to package it. Any volunteer ? Thanks, Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EM

Re: FCPTools; initial .debs ready

7 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE9Kz3N5JyaE1ql3VQRAk32AJ9rCk6OMd+OE+Af/sZ6DjynyH0zRwCfVEnP > 8j2WT3TbsgpiZy3QGurXoGg= > =Q2+p > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PR

gpg passphrase and package building

When building a package, the description file and the changes file are signed separately. Has anyone a good solution to type only one time his gpg passphrase when building a package. Thanks, Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8

Re: gpg passphrase and package building

Thanks Colin and Roland, quintuple-agent sounds like what I was looking for. I wonder why they don't have choosen gpg-agent to name this soft. Christophe On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 06:53:28PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote: > christophe barbé (2002-07-24 11:47:50 -0400) : > > > When b

Re: gpg passphrase and package building

rase is correct and then when you type a wrong passphrase lead to a gpg error. I will use it as in the following script, comments are welcome. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E As every cat owner kno

Re: [binary+libs] or [binary] + [libs]

-- > Registered Linux user #66350 Debian 3.0 & Linux 2.4.19 > > My idea of Heaven is a solid white nightclub with me as a headliner for all > eternity, and they LOVE me. > --Father Dyer (The Exorcist) -- Christoph

Re: renaming a package

> -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPri

why evolution is not installable ?

g a software? My current understanding is that package should be build against currently available pacakges. Is that incorrect ? I repeat the point here is not evolution. I have already see that with others packages. Thanks, Christophe -- Christophe Barbé Software Engineer - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

dh_movefiles

eral thing like 'dh_movefiles package-dev' but nothing help. I've the two files package-dev.(files|dirs) in the debian directory. I can certainly use DH_COMPAT=2 but I would prefer to use dh_movefiles correctly. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint:

Re: dh_movefiles

p://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God. pgp3EdcWjzlhs.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: dh_movefiles : SOLVED

Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God. pgpYtd6KTxwrq.pgp Description: PGP signature

including full source code in upload

Section for source files dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload ... dpkg-buildpackage: full upload; Debian-native package (full source is included) Other problem, I got the following message : dh_gencontrol -pgphoto2 dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:De

Re: including full source code in upload

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Christophe, > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:49:49AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and > > that I intend to become a maintener

Re: including full source code in upload

obody want to do it. They have completly rewritten gphoto2 from scratch and ported drivers. > Chris > -- > Chris Halls | Frankfurt, Germany Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein, On Science pgpYDnYyWlMHo.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: including full source code in upload

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:13:30PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > You have to rename the original tarball to > gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack. > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3. You mean I should only rename it ? Christophe --

Re: including full source code in upload

-dev_2.0beta3-0.1_i386.deb gphoto2_2.0beta3-0.1_i386.deb As you can see there are two tar.gz, the upstream one (renamed as you told me) and the full source. I've missed something. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A

Re: including full source code in upload

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:08:02AM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3. > >

Re: including full source code in upload

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:52:39AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > > > But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3. > > > >

Re: including full source code in upload : SOLVED

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote: > Hey guys, > > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory: > > gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz > > Yes, it has to be gphoto2_2.0b

Re: including full source code in upload : SOLVED

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:09:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > christophe =?iso-8859-15?Q?barb=E9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 04:32:39AM +0100, David Spreen wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > > > > > christophe barbé <[

Re: gphoto2 (WAS: RE: including full source code in upload)

; YA > Is it not a upstream choice ? But this package include a command-line frontend. Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) : gphoto2: command-line front-end libgphoto2 : libraries libgphoto2-dev : to build others front-ends. And perhaps a doc package but it

Re: gphoto2 (WAS: RE: including full source code in upload)

your question. Could you reformulate your question? Christophe > > regards, > junichi > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer > GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4 -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL

Re: dh_movefiles : SOLVED

On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 06:26:40PM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:35:14AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > Shame on me. > > I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell. > > Then my DH_COMPAT was not set. > > P

version number issue

le to do later 2.0beta4-1.0 ? Am I right ? Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Cats seem go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for what you want. --Joseph Wood Krutch pgpwSFEIv0Hl7.pgp

New Maintainer Application

ready and a sponsor. And I will get a signature next week at the LinuxWord NY. Can I apply now to start the process or should I really wait for the sig? Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E People that hat

Re: New Maintainer Application

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:11:26PM +, Daniel Silverstone wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 10:04:25AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > Can I apply now to start the process or should I really wait for the sig? > > Start your application now so that FrontDesk have time to a

shlibs explaination

built? What I've missed ? Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann pgpxMcCSgEetH.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: shlibs explaination

path for libgphoto2.so.0 dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: could not find path for libgphoto2_port.so.0 Christophe On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 06:04:25PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > I need some explanations on how to use correctly shlibs. > > I have a package which produces >

Re: shlibs explaination

LIBRARY_PATH. Ok It does the trick. Thanks, Christophe > > -- > - mdz > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG Fing

upstream numbering scheme debian compliant ?

Is there a better way ? Thanks, Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann pgp8pDd9

Re: upstream numbering scheme debian compliant ?

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:35:27AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5. > > For the final release 2.0, I will pack

Re: upstream numbering scheme debian compliant ?

the upstream choice to call it gphoto2. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Cats are rather delicate creatures and they are subject to a good many ailments, but I never heard of one who suffered from insomnia.

is this license DFSG compliant ?

t in the product > documentation would be appreciated but is not required. > > 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and > must not be misrepresented as being the original software. > > 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source > distr

Re: is this license DFSG compliant ?

On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 05:51:21PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hello Christophe, > > On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 04:53:52PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > Is the following license DFSG compliant ? > > I think that it is with the clause 4 of the DFSG but I would like to be

gpg key validity question

-- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E Imagination is more important than knowledge. Albert Einstein, On Science pgpYqvAyz9EQZ.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: gpg key validity question

t 09:40:29AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 10:04:20AM -0400, christophe barbé wrote: > > > I wonder if it is acceptable to sign a key from someone that : > > > - I meet him personnaly and saw his ID > > - I saw him in a public meeting in a s

Re: gpg key validity question

s key as-is ? In my understanding I can but that mean that the NM process is flawless in this regard and is going to reject his key. Christophe > > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F

Re: gpg key validity question

sly :) So you understand my problem. You think the NM process is flawless in this regard. Do you think that with all the verifications I have done, I can sign his key and by this way indicate that I know that this key belong to the well known person. Christophe > > Steve Langase

Re: gpg key validity question

rom) I believe it is harder to fake an ID but it's still possible. I consider the ID to be ONLY a part of the verification process. I believe that someone who signs a key of someone he knows well after exchanging crypted email give you a stronger proof that someone that sign a key simply

Re: how to package gpgp again

u?) takes up upstream maintainership, maybe it is still > better for its users to migrate to seahorse. They can do this at their > own pace, of course, as nobody will rip the old gpgp package from > their harddisk. Last time I checked (It was not yesterday), gpa was better than seahorse. Ch

Re: how to package gpgp again

On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 01:26:39AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote: > On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 10:58:06 -0400, > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Last time I checked (It was not yesterday), gpa was better than > > seahorse. > I tested gpa 0.4.2-2 and it took mor

looking for a TeX guy to (help to) package PassiveTeX

something is still not right (perhaps not in this package) and he is not a TeXpert (and is already busy). http://www.braincells.com/debian/passivetex/ I am looking for someone to package it or help me (= explain me) to package it. Any volunteer ? Thanks, Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EM

Re: Libtool for multiple libs in one source package

ibpisock___la_LDFLAGS = \ > -export-dynamic -version-info > $(PISOCKPP_CURRENT):$(PISOCKPP_REVISION):$ > (PISOCKPP_AGE) > > > > -- > Ben Darnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://thoughtstream.org > Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP/GPG key 1024D/

Re: looking for a TeX guy to (help to) package PassiveTeX

m (it is still unclear where it is). The only thing I am sure is that it works well out of the box with redHat so we should be able to find a proper solution. Thanks, Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E An

Re: FCPTools; initial .debs ready

7 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE9Kz3N5JyaE1ql3VQRAk32AJ9rCk6OMd+OE+Af/sZ6DjynyH0zRwCfVEnP > 8j2WT3TbsgpiZy3QGurXoGg= > =Q2+p > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE

gpg passphrase and package building

When building a package, the description file and the changes file are signed separately. Has anyone a good solution to type only one time his gpg passphrase when building a package. Thanks, Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8

Re: gpg passphrase and package building

Thanks Colin and Roland, quintuple-agent sounds like what I was looking for. I wonder why they don't have choosen gpg-agent to name this soft. Christophe On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 06:53:28PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote: > christophe barbé (2002-07-24 11:47:50 -0400) : > > > When b

Re: gpg passphrase and package building

is correct and then when you type a wrong passphrase lead to a gpg error. I will use it as in the following script, comments are welcome. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E As every cat owner kno

Re: [binary+libs] or [binary] + [libs]

-- > Registered Linux user #66350 Debian 3.0 & Linux 2.4.19 > > My idea of Heaven is a solid white nightclub with me as a headliner for all > eternity, and they LOVE me. > --Father Dyer (The Exorcist) -- Christoph

Re: renaming a package

> -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPri