Hi all
Sorry to nag again.
@ Romain Beauxis
You said once I might ping you, since you might be interested to be
involved, since you also do the cwiid packages.
If noone has any further objections, it might be only a matter of
uploading it, I think.
Cheers
Roman
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 19:49 +02
Hi all
I guess that all issues with the pd-wiimote package have been resolved.
Do you think it can be uploaded?
Many thanks
Roman
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debia
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 11:49:42AM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Every tarball should have a file in it that contains the license.
Having that be a standard name like LICENSE.txt makes it really easy
to find for people who are doing things like packaging Pd libraries
for Debian. Also,
On 2010-09-06 17:49, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
> Every tarball should have a file in it that contains the license.
> Having that be a standard name like LICENSE.txt makes it really easy to
> find for people who are doing things like packaging Pd libraries for
> Debian. Also, the LICENSE.tx
On Sep 6, 2010, at 4:02 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-09-02 11:20, Roman Haefeli wrote:
I really don't get the logic of _adding_ a license at all.
this is only because of some attempts to uniform the build process for
pd-externals (nothing to do with debian), which makes some hard
On 2010-09-02 11:20, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>>
>> I really don't get the logic of _adding_ a license at all.
>>
this is only because of some attempts to uniform the build process for
pd-externals (nothing to do with debian), which makes some hardcoded
assumptions about what should be in a tarball/in
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 12:18:27PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:58:57PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:
[snip]
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 01:07 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I am wondering about th
On 05/09/10 12:18, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
> On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:58:57PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2010, at 3:36 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 01:07 -0400, Hans-Christoph
On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:58:57PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 3:36 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 01:07 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Looks pretty good to me, but I'm just learning myse
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 18:29 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 05:43:32PM +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> >On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 17:22 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 11:13 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >> > On 02/09/10 05:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >>
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 05:43:32PM +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 17:22 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 11:13 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 02/09/10 05:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
> >>> So another approach would be to repackage the tarball to just
> >>
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 17:22 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 11:13 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On 02/09/10 05:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >
> > >>> So another approach would be to repackage the
> > >>> tarball
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 06:38:18PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:58:57PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:
I was under the impression that dh would set the strip options in
the $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) for the
On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:58:57PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 3:36 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 01:07 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Looks pretty good to me, but I'm just learning myse
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:58:57PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 3:36 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 01:07 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Looks pretty good to me, but I'm just learning myself :)
Thanks for having a look.
One thing I like to me
On Sep 2, 2010, at 3:36 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 01:07 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Looks pretty good to me, but I'm just learning myself :)
Thanks for having a look.
One thing I like to mention: The upstream sources come with a Makefile
based on a apparently ol
On Sep 2, 2010, at 4:06 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 09:38 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 01:16:03 (CEST), Roman Haefeli wrote:
Hi all
I checked in my first package. I tried to follow - where possible
- very
closely to pd-motex, which has been al
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 05:21:54PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 17:13:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
On 02/09/10 05:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
So another approach would be to repackage the tarball to just
include the COPYING file. While we are at it, we could also
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 11:13 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 02/09/10 05:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
> >>> So another approach would be to repackage the
> >>> tarball to just include the COPYING file. While we are at it, we could
> >>> als
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 17:13:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 02/09/10 05:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
So another approach would be to repackage the
tarball to just include the COPYING file. While we are at it, we could
also use the new Makefile and get rid of the other patc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/09/10 05:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>> So another approach would be to repackage the
>>> tarball to just include the COPYING file. While we are at it, we could
>>> also use the new Makefile and get rid of the other patch.
>>
>> Instead of u
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 10:48 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 09:38:56AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >Packagingwise, I think it is fine, but I'm umcomfortable with the two
> >patches. First, please use the patch metadata as described in
> >http://dep.debian.net/deps/de
[ no need to CC me explicitly, just hit your 'reply to list' instead
'reply to all' button ]
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 10:06:50 (CEST), Roman Haefeli wrote:
> The reason why I added the LICENSE file in the first place is because
> the Makefile is hardcoded to install it. Probably I shouldn't have
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 09:38:56AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Packagingwise, I think it is fine, but I'm umcomfortable with the two
patches. First, please use the patch metadata as described in
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/.
Oh, only saw this _after_ sending off same suggestion myself.
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 09:36:10AM +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 01:07 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Looks pretty good to me, but I'm just learning myself :)
Thanks for having a look.
One thing I like to mention: The upstream sources come with a Makefile
based on a a
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 09:38 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 01:16:03 (CEST), Roman Haefeli wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > I checked in my first package. I tried to follow - where possible - very
> > closely to pd-motex, which has been already uploaded.
> > I would be glad if
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 01:16:03 (CEST), Roman Haefeli wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I checked in my first package. I tried to follow - where possible - very
> closely to pd-motex, which has been already uploaded.
> I would be glad if someone could have a look at it.
>
> FYI: It is using what I believe is c
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 01:07 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> Looks pretty good to me, but I'm just learning myself :)
Thanks for having a look.
One thing I like to mention: The upstream sources come with a Makefile
based on a apparently old Makefile template for libdirs. It was pretty
broken
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 07:07:07 (CEST), Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> Looks pretty good to me, but I'm just learning myself :) I am wondering
> about the strip stuff:
>
> override_dh_strip:
> strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note --strip-
> unneeded \
> debian/pd-wiimote/usr
Looks pretty good to me, but I'm just learning myself :) I am
wondering about the strip stuff:
override_dh_strip:
strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note --strip-
unneeded \
debian/pd-wiimote/usr/lib/pd/extra/wiimote/wiimote.pd_linux
My guess is that this is needed in ord
Hi all
I checked in my first package. I tried to follow - where possible - very
closely to pd-motex, which has been already uploaded.
I would be glad if someone could have a look at it.
FYI: It is using what I believe is called short-form dh.
Cheers
Roman
31 matches
Mail list logo
