> You want to start a flamewar before you are a dd? Thats neat, but I don't
> take it.
I don't think anyone wants to start a flamewar, but there is a middle
ground between "just wait" and "the new maintainer process is hopeless".
If James is unable to keep up with the demands of processing applic
> You must have heard many times by now that Debian is a volunteer effort, and
> things are done on a time-available basis.
Of course we all know this. But the question is really one of bottlenecking,
not of not enough available time of Debian as a whole.
The whole reason that Debian exists (IMO)
> > If an AM becomes unable to
> > process an applicant within a reasonable reasonable response time (say
> > two weeks of overhead beyond delays the fault of the applicant) then the
> > applicant should be returned to the AM queue. It's not right that one AM
>
> Why is it a problem if an applica
> I am a newbie so please forgive me if a break any etiquette of this email
> group.
Forgiven, but this is not the appropriate place for such questions.
debian-mentors is for people helping people who are or want to be new Debian
developers. If you want help in how to use debian, please post on
Hi,
I'm a relatively new Debian maintainer, and I've now had several bugs filed
against some of my packages for which I never received email notification.
I've also had bugs filed for which I have received notification. I
was just wondering if anyone else out there was having problems with bug
n
> Another thing it does is to change the MAC address of any/all ethernet cards
> in the system (requiring a reboot).
Why do you need to reboot just to change the MAC?
Eric
> Okay, a blatantly obvious question from a complete newbie to
> Linux.
Tip 1: post on debian-user not debian-mentors. debian-mentors is for
new Debian developers not new debian users.
> If I was to install a new
> hard drive as a slave. Install Linux on that how would I go about
> f
> 1) I'm currently packing snoopy, it's an execve logger, it overrides
> the default execve behaviour in libc, with an LD_PRELOAD, and logs all
> executed commands. Anyhow, the upstream version installs into /lib,
> since it's for libc.. however, does it go there in a deb or into
> /usr/lib? It's n
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:45:42 -0500, Aubin Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 05:32:48PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> I am currently working on a package that provides the framework to
> >> build an IP packet filter based on netfilter / iptables. This needs a
> >> 2.4.x k
> (1)
> Have one init script and have this init script be invoked in two
> places.
Yuck.
> (2)
> Have two completely different init scripts. I rejected this because
> both scripts aren't that much different and there would be much
> redundancy.
Then have three scripts. Put the common common cod
> I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer than the
> version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but have not received
> a response.
How long did you wait? James is a very busy guy with a lot of
responsibilities. He'll get to you eventually.
You should file a
> I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer than the
> version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but have not received
> a response.
Sorry, I looked quickly and didn't realize just how out of date this
package really was. Bug #38026 contains the 1.8.0 availabili
> > However, it _is_ different, and so you must include a copy of it in the
> > copyright file.
>
> Bah. I was hoping to avoid that conclusion, although I think you are
> correct. :-)
Well, adding a copy of the license isn't so hard.
FWIW, there was talk of doing this for *all* packages, r
> Hm, how about having /etc/init.d/$package which supports the actions
> that are required by the sysvinit "API" and one additional target
> "pre-start". And then /etc/init.d/${package}-pre which invokes
> /etc/init.d/$package pre-start if invoked with "start", and does noop
> on all other actions?
> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -ldb
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[1]: *** [viewmol_] Error 1
>
[]
>
> Is the absence of libdb.so in /usr/lib a bug in libc6-dev?
No.
> What is the proper way to solve this question?
apt-get install libdb2-dev
Eric
> I'm having trouble figuring out how to properly handle beta versions
> without requiring an Epochs, or the inability to provide new source.
>
> I've got sendmail-8.12.0.Beta5, but will eventually have sendmail-8.12.0-1.
>
> *) using sendmail-8.12.0-0Beta5 will allow 8.12.0-1 to superceed, but
> I am packing a program (VisualOS) which I am the author and upstream
> maintainer (pure debian package?) and I have a couple of problems.
As has been stated, this should not be a pure debian package.
For example, I have a package called msttcorefonts which is an installer
app for installing Mic
> "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> =20
> > a "pure debian" package as you put it should really only be for items=
> written
> > for debian by debian devels. Anything else can be treated as a stand=
> ard
> > package.
>
> I would add that only pure Debian packages should incl
> > All pure Debian packages must included a debian directory. Non-native
> > packages may or may not include a debian directory in the upstream
> > source file. (Upstream source is upstream source. If the upstream
> > author provides an old/obsolete debian directory in the upstream tarb=
> all,
> this deals with libranet branded debian, X when configured only shows 1/4 of
> the screen, like an edited video game I am unable to play, does any one have
> any suggestions for lcd configuration?
This mailing list is for mentoring new Debian Developers. If you have
problems using the Librane
> I'm a new mantainer. Last week (April 3rd) I uploaded two (new) packages:
> towitoko (libtowitoko2 and libtowitoko-dev) and pcsc-lite (pcscd,
> libpcsclite0 and libpcsclite-dev).
>
> But I have only received confirmation of the installation of towitoko, and
> not of pcsc-lite.
>
> I only wanted
> I have a problem. The Webmin distribution consists of various modules.
> It has periodic numbered releases. It also has unnumbered updates of
> individual modules between releases for bug fixes etc. What do I do?
0. Complain to upstream and ask them to make an official patch-level
number f
> I was wondering if Build Deps in a source package follow dependencies.
> For example, if I build a package that requires libgnome-dev to
> compile, do I need to specify the myriad of other packages that are
> automatically installed when I install libgnome-dev?
This came up a few months ago.
I
> A package of mine requires the libstlport library. This library installs
> as:
>
> $ ls -l /usr/lib/libstlport*
> lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 16 Apr 3 12:54 /usr/lib/libstlport.a
> -> libstlport_gcc.a
> lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 20 Apr 3 12:54
> /usr/lib/libstlport.
> dpkg-buildpackage places the tcl script in debian/tmp/usr/bin as expected,
That is the problem. It doesn't belong there. It belongs in
debian//usr/bin and you should make sure that your Makefile
installs it there.
Note the comment:
> # Add here commands to install the package into debi
> | - Files in /usr/share/doc may not be referenced by any
> |program. If such files are needed, they must be placed in
> |/usr/share/package-name/, and symbolic links created as required
> |in /usr/share/doc/package-name/
>
> Does "any program" include postinst script
> I'm playing with packaging, and lintian's complaining about no manpage for
> a binary... but I have a myapp.1 manpage in both the debian/
> control-directory and the root of the source directory..
>
> I don't understand what I'm doing wrong :(
>
> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.. as
> I'm using debian testing with kernel 2.2.18pre21 and am
> trying to compile modules for my NVIDIA TNT2 card,
This is off topic for this list. Please post user issues to
debian-user. This list is for mentoring new debian maintainers
or other issues involving in creating debian packaging.
> In
> OK, let's say now that the current is increased, and the new name of the
> library is libgpgme.so.1.0.0. This means that I should change in the
> debian/control file the name of the package and it will become libgpgme1
> but, what happens with the old package (libgpgme0) and with the programs
> c
> Yes, but now I have another question. The library itself has a
> different version numbering.
That's ok. Version number and SO name are not the same and need not
have any correlation. Many different versions can have the same soname
and that's ok.
> In this way, current version is 0.2.1, but
> > I think the answer is simply that you shouldn't be treating this
> > as a "debian native" package.
>
> Why not? If no changes take place from upstream version to debian
> source, tagging on "-1", and creating an empty Debianization diff is
> unsound.
There's nothing wrong with an empty diff.
> Now, I'd really like to see it in the Debian
> distribution so I'm just trying to understand
> how I can make it possible.
Do you want to become a debian developer or do you want someone else to
maintain the package?
If you're interested in being a dd, you should apply. Follow the
instructions
> i'd like to package the opengl manpages... but there tarballs are a bit
> strange... they're .Z files to begin with, and they don't appear to have
> a version number (some other docs have 1.2 as a version, so i suppose i
> can assume this) and the files untar into a directory called
> "release".
> Doh a couple of months
>
> As almost all developers are (I must have read about that somewhere...)
> I'm lazy and I think the steps to become a Debian developer
> are a little "tedious".
This is on purpose. Not everyone should be a developer.
> I give up as a developer :-)
>
> What sho
> Hi, I'm just wondering if someone can find out for me what else I need to
> do to get through the DAM approval phase; eg, what the holdup is. I hate
> even to be asking this question since I'm sure the DAM folks are busy with
> other things than just approving folks in queue, and I'm aware they'r
> Some of them are kinda redundant with packages in Debian already, such as
> my maintenance of VFTP, a secure FTP server based off of OpenBSDFTP. I was
> just wondering if that's cool, or if the redundancy is stupid...
If it's another packaging of something else that's already packaged, we
don't
I've exchanged email with Paul Davis many many times. He's a reasonable
guy. He won't prevent you from packaging it, but I wouldn't package
it at this time if I were you.
Being included in a distribution opens the package up to a wider audience.
If the project is still immature this can be a ba
> It looks like it is just making explicit the restrictions which already exist
> in law (whatever those might be), and is not part of the license per se.
That seems to be the case, but I'm not entirely sure. This appears to
be a standard disclaimer that gets attached to many licenses. A Google
> I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon.
> However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program
> itself is GPL.
Then it belongs in contrib. Anything which is itself free but has non-free
dependencies should go in contrib.
Eric
> Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the
> bet for contrib, correct?
Correct.
Eric
> Really? I am not doing any static linking with libssl, only dynamic, so I
> don't believe that I am including any crypto.
I'm not sure that that matters. The BXA refers to "Open Cryptographic
Interfaces". My understanding was that any software which contained hooks
to call other software which
> - there's no postrm script yet althougth there's a real need for that.
> Should I write it before uploading?
Yes, of course. All packages should install and uninstall cleanly before
being uploaded.
> - I'd like to engage many discussion about replicator on debian lists.
> Should I wait for t
> To replicate a Debian system we need to know which configuration files
> are replicable and which ones are not.
What would you consider to be non-replicable?
I would imagine that there would be few enough of such files that you could
keep track of them internally to your package.
> The word r
> I plan to distribute a custom kernel for the installation bootdisk of
> replicator. This is mainly a monolitic kernel with all network cards
> drivers plus some networking option.
>
> My question is : can I compile this by hand and then only release the
> binary (along with the right .con
I don't think this refers to you. I think someone subscribed to
debian-devel-changes has a full inbox and the mail server is bouncing the
error to all senders, i.e. you.
Eric
> --4bRzO86E/ozDv8r1
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc"
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
>
>
> I'm interested in a package (gnu-smalltalk, specifically) whose maintainer
> appears to be inactive (on this package, at least)...
>
> I would be willing to maintain the package if possible, but I'm not
> currently a Debian maintainer... Can I package something and see if the
> current maintaine
> Hi,
>
> is there anyone knows if there are problem with Nisca program (Network
> Interface Statistics Collection Agents)
>
> and Debian. ??
>
> I'm testing Nisca with Debian unstable but it doesn't work.
Can you be more specific?
Eric
> My name is Faust Tanasescu, and I would be interrested in becoming a Debian
> developer.
Cool, but be aware that this is a process that takes some time. You won't
be able to decide to join today and start uploading packages tomorrow. It
will take several months at least to become a fully fled
> moin, moin,
>
> I foresee needing to ask several questions in the near future and want to
> make sure I'm asking things in the right place and not SPAMming up lists
> inappropriately :).
I'm afraid you're spamming this list inappropriately.
debian-mentors is for asking questions about becoming
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 01:44:01PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> >=20
> > From: Mark Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >=20
> > SGI is pleased to announce the new version of Performance Co-Pilot (PCP)
> > open source (version 2.2.0-18) is now available for download from
>
> I put it in contrib, since the licensing is a bit unclear. It probably
> belongs in main. The LGPL core do dynamically loading of GPL drivers -
> without explicit notice that that is allowed.
There's no license conflict there.
The GPL only allows linking with other code under the GPL, but the
> 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 shall the authors or the University of Arizona be li
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 10:12:34AM +0530, Viral wrote:
>
> > How do I get my packages to build for the host type 'i386-pc-linux-gnu'
> > rather than 'i686-pc-linux-gnu' ?
>
> Use the --host switch to configure.
Uh, how would you do that?
I mean, what would you add to your debian/rules file to
> But I have a problem, it seems that you have to have at least 1 main binary
> in the package (is that true?)
No, that is not true.
> Has somebody got a fine link how to make a debian package out of some code
> which doesn't need any compiling and which doesn't produce any binary...?
You can
> I'm under the impression that any shared library *must* have
> a SONAME.
Yes, but "SONAME" just means the name of the .so file. Policy uses
this term incorrectly to refer to the extension of the soname.
Saying that a shared library must have a SONAME is then equivalent
to saying that it must ha
> > Yes, but "SONAME" just means the name of the .so file.
>
> OK, now I'm truly confused.
>
> I thought a "SONAME" was something embedded into the shared object
> file. As I understand things, the SONAME is completely independent of
> the file name, at least in principle.
It's not quite that s
> That is a nice, rational versioning scheme, I agree.
>
> I don't see how it fits in this discussion, though. For one thing,
> I'm not using libtool.
But all shared libraries are recommended to follow this convention.
> So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions:
>
> I could arbitrarily start with SONAME libInventor.so.0, and fix up the
> packaging with an epoch if I get stuck later. Or, since the source
> version is 2.something, I could start with SONAME libInventor.so.2.
> Or is the correct approach to just embed the entire source version
> in the SONAME,
> You want to start a flamewar before you are a dd? Thats neat, but I don't
> take it.
I don't think anyone wants to start a flamewar, but there is a middle
ground between "just wait" and "the new maintainer process is hopeless".
If James is unable to keep up with the demands of processing appli
> You must have heard many times by now that Debian is a volunteer effort, and
> things are done on a time-available basis.
Of course we all know this. But the question is really one of bottlenecking,
not of not enough available time of Debian as a whole.
The whole reason that Debian exists (IMO
> > If an AM becomes unable to
> > process an applicant within a reasonable reasonable response time (say
> > two weeks of overhead beyond delays the fault of the applicant) then the
> > applicant should be returned to the AM queue. It's not right that one AM
>
> Why is it a problem if an applic
> I am a newbie so please forgive me if a break any etiquette of this email
> group.
Forgiven, but this is not the appropriate place for such questions.
debian-mentors is for people helping people who are or want to be new Debian
developers. If you want help in how to use debian, please post o
Hi,
I'm a relatively new Debian maintainer, and I've now had several bugs filed
against some of my packages for which I never received email notification.
I've also had bugs filed for which I have received notification. I
was just wondering if anyone else out there was having problems with bug
> Another thing it does is to change the MAC address of any/all ethernet cards
> in the system (requiring a reboot).
Why do you need to reboot just to change the MAC?
Eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Okay, a blatantly obvious question from a complete newbie to
> Linux.
Tip 1: post on debian-user not debian-mentors. debian-mentors is for
new Debian developers not new debian users.
> If I was to install a new
> hard drive as a slave. Install Linux on that how would I go about
>
> 1) I'm currently packing snoopy, it's an execve logger, it overrides
> the default execve behaviour in libc, with an LD_PRELOAD, and logs all
> executed commands. Anyhow, the upstream version installs into /lib,
> since it's for libc.. however, does it go there in a deb or into
> /usr/lib? It's
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:45:42 -0500, Aubin Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 05:32:48PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> I am currently working on a package that provides the framework to
> >> build an IP packet filter based on netfilter / iptables. This needs a
> >> 2.4.x
> (1)
> Have one init script and have this init script be invoked in two
> places.
Yuck.
> (2)
> Have two completely different init scripts. I rejected this because
> both scripts aren't that much different and there would be much
> redundancy.
Then have three scripts. Put the common common co
> I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer than the
> version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but have not received
> a response.
How long did you wait? James is a very busy guy with a lot of
responsibilities. He'll get to you eventually.
You should file a
> I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer than the
> version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but have not received
> a response.
Sorry, I looked quickly and didn't realize just how out of date this
package really was. Bug #38026 contains the 1.8.0 availabil
> > However, it _is_ different, and so you must include a copy of it in the
> > copyright file.
>
> Bah. I was hoping to avoid that conclusion, although I think you are
> correct. :-)
Well, adding a copy of the license isn't so hard.
FWIW, there was talk of doing this for *all* packages,
> Hm, how about having /etc/init.d/$package which supports the actions
> that are required by the sysvinit "API" and one additional target
> "pre-start". And then /etc/init.d/${package}-pre which invokes
> /etc/init.d/$package pre-start if invoked with "start", and does noop
> on all other actions
> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -ldb
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[1]: *** [viewmol_] Error 1
>
[]
>
> Is the absence of libdb.so in /usr/lib a bug in libc6-dev?
No.
> What is the proper way to solve this question?
apt-get install libdb2-dev
Eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
> I'm having trouble figuring out how to properly handle beta versions
> without requiring an Epochs, or the inability to provide new source.
>
> I've got sendmail-8.12.0.Beta5, but will eventually have sendmail-8.12.0-1.
>
> *) using sendmail-8.12.0-0Beta5 will allow 8.12.0-1 to superceed, but
> I am packing a program (VisualOS) which I am the author and upstream
> maintainer (pure debian package?) and I have a couple of problems.
As has been stated, this should not be a pure debian package.
For example, I have a package called msttcorefonts which is an installer
app for installing Mi
> "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> =20
> > a "pure debian" package as you put it should really only be for items=
> written
> > for debian by debian devels. Anything else can be treated as a stand=
> ard
> > package.
>
> I would add that only pure Debian packages should inc
> > All pure Debian packages must included a debian directory. Non-native
> > packages may or may not include a debian directory in the upstream
> > source file. (Upstream source is upstream source. If the upstream
> > author provides an old/obsolete debian directory in the upstream tarb=
> all
> this deals with libranet branded debian, X when configured only shows 1/4 of
> the screen, like an edited video game I am unable to play, does any one have
> any suggestions for lcd configuration?
This mailing list is for mentoring new Debian Developers. If you have
problems using the Libran
> I'm a new mantainer. Last week (April 3rd) I uploaded two (new) packages:
> towitoko (libtowitoko2 and libtowitoko-dev) and pcsc-lite (pcscd,
> libpcsclite0 and libpcsclite-dev).
>
> But I have only received confirmation of the installation of towitoko, and
> not of pcsc-lite.
>
> I only wante
> I have a problem. The Webmin distribution consists of various modules.
> It has periodic numbered releases. It also has unnumbered updates of
> individual modules between releases for bug fixes etc. What do I do?
0. Complain to upstream and ask them to make an official patch-level
number
> I was wondering if Build Deps in a source package follow dependencies.
> For example, if I build a package that requires libgnome-dev to
> compile, do I need to specify the myriad of other packages that are
> automatically installed when I install libgnome-dev?
This came up a few months ago.
> A package of mine requires the libstlport library. This library installs
> as:
>
> $ ls -l /usr/lib/libstlport*
> lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 16 Apr 3 12:54 /usr/lib/libstlport.a ->
>libstlport_gcc.a
> lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 20 Apr 3 12:54 /usr/lib/libstlport.so
> dpkg-buildpackage places the tcl script in debian/tmp/usr/bin as expected,
That is the problem. It doesn't belong there. It belongs in
debian//usr/bin and you should make sure that your Makefile
installs it there.
Note the comment:
> # Add here commands to install the package into deb
> | - Files in /usr/share/doc may not be referenced by any
> |program. If such files are needed, they must be placed in
> |/usr/share/package-name/, and symbolic links created as required
> |in /usr/share/doc/package-name/
>
> Does "any program" include postinst scrip
> I'm playing with packaging, and lintian's complaining about no manpage for
> a binary... but I have a myapp.1 manpage in both the debian/
> control-directory and the root of the source directory..
>
> I don't understand what I'm doing wrong :(
>
> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.. as
> I'm using debian testing with kernel 2.2.18pre21 and am
> trying to compile modules for my NVIDIA TNT2 card,
This is off topic for this list. Please post user issues to
debian-user. This list is for mentoring new debian maintainers
or other issues involving in creating debian packaging.
> In
> OK, let's say now that the current is increased, and the new name of the
> library is libgpgme.so.1.0.0. This means that I should change in the
> debian/control file the name of the package and it will become libgpgme1
> but, what happens with the old package (libgpgme0) and with the programs
>
> Yes, but now I have another question. The library itself has a
> different version numbering.
That's ok. Version number and SO name are not the same and need not
have any correlation. Many different versions can have the same soname
and that's ok.
> In this way, current version is 0.2.1, bu
> > I think the answer is simply that you shouldn't be treating this
> > as a "debian native" package.
>
> Why not? If no changes take place from upstream version to debian
> source, tagging on "-1", and creating an empty Debianization diff is
> unsound.
There's nothing wrong with an empty diff.
> Now, I'd really like to see it in the Debian
> distribution so I'm just trying to understand
> how I can make it possible.
Do you want to become a debian developer or do you want someone else to
maintain the package?
If you're interested in being a dd, you should apply. Follow the
instruction
> i'd like to package the opengl manpages... but there tarballs are a bit
> strange... they're .Z files to begin with, and they don't appear to have
> a version number (some other docs have 1.2 as a version, so i suppose i
> can assume this) and the files untar into a directory called
> "release".
> Hi, I'm just wondering if someone can find out for me what else I need to
> do to get through the DAM approval phase; eg, what the holdup is. I hate
> even to be asking this question since I'm sure the DAM folks are busy with
> other things than just approving folks in queue, and I'm aware they'
> Some of them are kinda redundant with packages in Debian already, such as
> my maintenance of VFTP, a secure FTP server based off of OpenBSDFTP. I was
> just wondering if that's cool, or if the redundancy is stupid...
If it's another packaging of something else that's already packaged, we
don't
I've exchanged email with Paul Davis many many times. He's a reasonable
guy. He won't prevent you from packaging it, but I wouldn't package
it at this time if I were you.
Being included in a distribution opens the package up to a wider audience.
If the project is still immature this can be a b
> It looks like it is just making explicit the restrictions which already exist
> in law (whatever those might be), and is not part of the license per se.
That seems to be the case, but I'm not entirely sure. This appears to
be a standard disclaimer that gets attached to many licenses. A Google
> I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon.
> However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program
> itself is GPL.
Then it belongs in contrib. Anything which is itself free but has non-free
dependencies should go in contrib.
Eric
--
To U
> Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the
> bet for contrib, correct?
Correct.
Eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Really? I am not doing any static linking with libssl, only dynamic, so I
> don't believe that I am including any crypto.
I'm not sure that that matters. The BXA refers to "Open Cryptographic
Interfaces". My understanding was that any software which contained hooks
to call other software whic
> Doh a couple of months
>
> As almost all developers are (I must have read about that somewhere...)
> I'm lazy and I think the steps to become a Debian developer
> are a little "tedious".
This is on purpose. Not everyone should be a developer.
> I give up as a developer :-)
>
> What sh
> - there's no postrm script yet althougth there's a real need for that.
> Should I write it before uploading?
Yes, of course. All packages should install and uninstall cleanly before
being uploaded.
> - I'd like to engage many discussion about replicator on debian lists.
> Should I wait for
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
