-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 23:44:42 +0100
Source: pd-zexy
Binary: pd-zexy
Architecture: source
Version: 2.2.7-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers
Changed-By: IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU
FYI: The status of the pd-zexy source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.2.6-2
Current version: 2.2.7-1
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you
Your message dated Sun, 21 Jan 2018 22:49:45 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#887934: fixed in pd-zexy 2.2.7-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #887934,
regarding pd-zexy FTBFS on amd64: FAIL: runtests.sh
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Source: pd-zexy
Version: 2.2.6-2
Severity: serious
Tags: buster sid
Some recent change in unstable makes pd-zexy FTBFS on amd64:
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/history/pd-zexy.html
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/pd-zexy.html
...
/usr/bin/make
Your message dated Thu, 8 Sep 2016 11:04:44 +0200
with message-id <4cb260db-e38e-d5b5-3602-e755e95f5...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#836827: pd-zexy: 'date' and 'time' objects missing
(only their help files are in package)
has caused the Debian Bug report #836827
Package: pd-zexy
Version: 2.2.6-2
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
To reproduce this:
- open Pd
- Click 'Help' -> 'Browser...' -> 'zexy/' -> 'date-help.pd' or 'time-help.pd'
When the help patch is opened, the 'date' and/o
FYI: The status of the pd-zexy source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.2.5-2
Current version: 2.2.6-2
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you
FYI: The status of the pd-zexy source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.2.5-1
Current version: 2.2.5-2
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:20:38 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#735985: fixed in pd-zexy 2.2.5-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #735985,
regarding pd-zexy: use dh-autoreconf instead of autotools-dev to fix FTBFS on
ppc64el
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Package: pd-zexy
Version: 2.2.5-1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu trusty ubuntu-patch
Dear Maintainer,
For the ppc64el architecture in Ubuntu, since this package uses libtool, a full
autoreconf is necessary instead of just config.{sub
IOhannes zmölnig dixit:
>>> Well, your puredata is from before stable... With the current build
>>> depends pd-zexy can be built in stable.
>
> as a matter of fact, i'm not entirely sure about this.
Mh. I’m just building to catch up, m68k had five thousand and then
On 01/17/2013 01:43 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
At some point (the changelog doesn't say) before squeeze the header
was moved from /u/include/m_pd.h to /u/i/pd/m_pd.h, which is where
for the record: the old header location is still available (symlinked)
modern packages expect it, which is why y
On 01/17/2013 07:33 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Felipe Sateler dixit:
(CCing you because I don't know if you are suscribed)
I’m not, thanks.
Well, your puredata is from before stable... With the current build
depends pd-zexy can be built in stable.
as a matter of fact, i'm no
On 01/17/2013 10:28 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Hi,
pd-zexy has alternative Build-Depends, however, they don’t work:
[…]
pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy : Depends: puredata-core which is a virtual
package. or
puredata (< 0.43) but it is not
going
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> Felipe Sateler dixit:
>
> >Well, your puredata is from before stable... With the current build
> >depends pd-zexy can be built in stable.
>
> Hmh. Strictly speaking, you need to version the B-D then.
It
Felipe Sateler dixit:
>(CCing you because I don't know if you are suscribed)
I’m not, thanks.
>Well, your puredata is from before stable... With the current build
>depends pd-zexy can be built in stable.
Hmh. Strictly speaking, you need to version the B-D then.
>I'm not
Hi Thorsten,
(CCing you because I don't know if you are suscribed)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> pd-zexy has alternative Build-Depends, however, they don’t work:
For some values of work ;)
>
> […]
> pbuilder-satisfydepends-dumm
Hi,
pd-zexy has alternative Build-Depends, however, they don’t work:
[…]
pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy : Depends: puredata-core which is a virtual
package. or
puredata (< 0.43) but it is not going
to be installed.
The following actions will reso
FYI: The status of the pd-zexy source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.2.3-2
Current version: 2.2.5-1
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-11-22 23:08, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> it seems that all those problems only come from the autotools generated
>> stuff, which is something where i have the feeling that it should not
>> create problems at all.
>>
>> i'm therefore wondering, wha
Your message dated Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:17:40 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#643454: fixed in pd-zexy 2.2.5-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #643454,
regarding pd-zexy: FTBFS: freadln.c:115:7: error: format not a string literal
and no format arguments [-Werror=format-security]
to be
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 07:25, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:49, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>
>>> right, makes sense.
>>> i a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-11-21 03:26, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:49, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
>> right, makes sense.
>> i adapted pd-zexy accordingly, pushed and now hope for an successfull
>> upload.
>
>
ore puredata-dev was introduced" so that the dependency
>> can be removed in the future.
>
> right, makes sense.
> i adapted pd-zexy accordingly, pushed and now hope for an successfull
> upload.
Looks like there is a strange thing with the install-sh section in
debian/copyright. T
itory (there is no reason to need the -dev package in a user
> system). Therefore, the semantics should be "give me puredata-dev, or
> puredata before puredata-dev was introduced" so that the dependency
> can be removed in the future.
right, makes sense.
i adapted pd-zexy accordi
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:17, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2011-11-11 14:15, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
>>
>>> but I couldn't upload :(. THe build dependency should be
>>> puredata-dev | puredata (<< 0.43), since puredata >= 0.43 is not
>>> enou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-11-11 14:15, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
>
>> but I couldn't upload :(. THe build dependency should be
>> puredata-dev | puredata (<< 0.43), since puredata >= 0.43 is not
>> enough to build.
>
> hmm, "puredata" _should_ be enough even with 0.43,
On 11/11/2011 03:02 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 13:31, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> i hopefully fixed the remaining issues with pd-zexy (namely: depending
>> on puredata-core rather th
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 13:31, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> i hopefully fixed the remaining issues with pd-zexy (namely: depending
> on puredata-core rather than puredata; not shipping license files that
> are in debian a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
i hopefully fixed the remaining issues with pd-zexy (namely: depending
on puredata-core rather than puredata; not shipping license files that
are in debian anyhow)
the new package fixes an RC bug, so i think it rather important to have
it included
Your message dated Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:53:06 +0100
with message-id <4eb95062.4080...@iem.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#647507: pd-zexy: missing files in package
has caused the Debian Bug report #647507,
regarding pd-zexy: missing files in package
to be marked as done.
This means that you
I am deeply sorry, this is not a bug.
After RTFM I noticed that I forgot to load the zexy library to pd.
Please delete/reject this bug report.
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists
Package: pd-zexy
Version: 2.2.3-2
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
after installing the package I noticed that some patches
cannot be loaded in puredata because the corresponding
.pd file is not present.
For instance, the demux.pd is not present while its help file
demux-help.pd is present
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-10-10 21:02, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 17:43 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
>>
>> to my knowledge i have fixed all the remaining issues of the "pd-zexy"
>> package.
>>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-10-10 20:30, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 17:43 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
>> to my knowledge i have fixed all the remaining issues of the "pd-zexy"
>> package.
>
> Shouldn'
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 17:43 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
> to my knowledge i have fixed all the remaining issues of the "pd-zexy"
> package.
>
The packages includes a lintian override statement:
# the upstream library format includes the license file in it, this
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 17:43 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> to my knowledge i have fixed all the remaining issues of the "pd-zexy"
> package.
Shouldn't pd-zexy depend only on puredata-core instead of puredata? Or
is there a particular reason that it wants
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
to my knowledge i have fixed all the remaining issues of the "pd-zexy"
package.
given that the new upload would fix an RC-critical bug, i would very
much appreciate it, if some DD could upload this package for me.
fgmasdr
IOhannes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-29 18:36, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Debian Policy requires documenting in changelog all packaging changes
> that affect the final installation at the user end - i.e. no need to
> document spelling changes to comments in build scripts, o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-29 18:36, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-09-29 at 05:45pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> if my packages start to be releasable without too much discussion,
>> i'll probably start handing out "unstable" tags :-)
>
> Seems you are confusing
On 11-09-29 at 05:45pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2011-09-29 17:06, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On Do, Sep 29, 2011 at 16:45:08 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> >> feel free to review, comment and upload :-)
> >
> > Still says UNRELEASED in debian/changelog ;-)
> >
> > at least that wou
On Do, Sep 29, 2011 at 17:45:46 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2011-09-29 17:06, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Do, Sep 29, 2011 at 16:45:08 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>> feel free to review, comment and upload :-)
>>
>> Still says UNRELEASED in debian/changelog ;-)
>>
>> at least
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-29 17:06, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Do, Sep 29, 2011 at 16:45:08 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> feel free to review, comment and upload :-)
>
> Still says UNRELEASED in debian/changelog ;-)
>
> at least that would make it appear
On Do, Sep 29, 2011 at 16:45:08 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2011-09-28 09:33, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>
>> so i am unsure how to proceed...
>>
>
> it seems that the problem has found a solution:
> upstream released a new version (2.2.5), which no longer includes those
> files.
> i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-28 09:33, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
> so i am unsure how to proceed...
>
it seems that the problem has found a solution:
upstream released a new version (2.2.5), which no longer includes those
files.
i have prepared a new package (new
On Mi, Sep 28, 2011 at 09:33:17 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2011-09-27 20:34, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>> deleting is probably the best thing, the question is how to achieve that
>>> here:
>>> - strip the autom4te.cache from the pristine-tar import?
>
> what i meant is to do a re-impor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-27 20:34, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> deleting is probably the best thing, the question is how to achieve that
>> here:
>> - strip the autom4te.cache from the pristine-tar import?
what i meant is to do a re-import with "git-import-orig --fil
On 11-09-27 at 09:55pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 20:50:01 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> > On 11-09-27 at 08:33pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 18:57:14 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 11-09-27 at 06:49pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 20:50:01 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-09-27 at 08:33pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 18:57:14 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>> > On 11-09-27 at 06:49pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> >> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 17:30:51 (CEST),
>> >> zmoelni
On 11-09-27 at 08:33pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 18:57:14 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> > On 11-09-27 at 06:49pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 17:30:51 (CEST),
> >> zmoelnig-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
> >>
> >> > The following commit
On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 18:59:44 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2011-09-27 18:49, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 17:30:51 (CEST),
>> zmoelnig-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
>>
>>> The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
>>> commit ce6b55f7d5eaed
On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 18:57:14 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-09-27 at 06:49pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 17:30:51 (CEST),
>> zmoelnig-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
>>
>> > The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
>> > commit ce6b55f7d5e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-27 19:05, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-09-27 at 06:56pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> On 2011-09-27 18:48, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>> This hunk looks wrong. Are you really sure about this?
>>>
>>
>> if it is indeed wrong, then it is a b
On 11-09-27 at 06:56pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2011-09-27 18:48, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > This hunk looks wrong. Are you really sure about this?
> >
>
> if it is indeed wrong, then it is a bug in cdbs, which generated this
> dependency.
> i trusted cdbs, but of course this can be que
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-27 18:49, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 17:30:51 (CEST),
> zmoelnig-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
>
>> The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
>> commit ce6b55f7d5eaed7c6d805e920cc93607a33e408c
On 11-09-27 at 06:49pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 17:30:51 (CEST),
> zmoelnig-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
>
> > The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
> > commit ce6b55f7d5eaed7c6d805e920cc93607a33e408c
> > Author: IOhannes m zmölnig
> > Date:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-27 18:48, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 17:30:50 (CEST),
> zmoelnig-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
>
>> The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
>> commit ef81a4d7dd804b2a628071a4693f99e9e50d82b9
On 11-09-27 at 06:48pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 17:30:50 (CEST),
> zmoelnig-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
>
> > The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
> > commit ef81a4d7dd804b2a628071a4693f99e9e50d82b9
> > Author: IOhannes m zmölnig
> > Date:
On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 17:30:51 (CEST), zmoelnig-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org
wrote:
> The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
> commit ce6b55f7d5eaed7c6d805e920cc93607a33e408c
> Author: IOhannes m zmölnig
> Date: Tue Sep 27 17:13:52 2011 +0200
>
> preserve autom4te.cac
On Di, Sep 27, 2011 at 17:30:50 (CEST), zmoelnig-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org
wrote:
> The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
> commit ef81a4d7dd804b2a628071a4693f99e9e50d82b9
> Author: IOhannes m zmölnig
> Date: Tue Sep 27 16:42:58 2011 +0200
>
> Regenerated debian/co
.
i have updated the debian package accordingly, and submitted everything
to to
git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-multimedia/pd-zexy
if one of my fellow pkg-multimedia friends could have a look and
eventually upload the package i would be thankful.
fgmadr
IOhannes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
Source: pd-zexy
Version: 2.2.3-2
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20110923 qa-ftbfs hardening-format-security hardening
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
amd64
Your message dated Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:41:50 +0200
with message-id <4dfa162e.4020...@iem.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#629807: pd-zexy: FTBFS: configure: error: m_pd.h is
desperately needed! (missing B-D on puredata-dev)
has caused the Debian Bug report #629807,
regarding pd-zexy: FTBFS: con
Source: pd-zexy
Version: 2.2.3-2
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20110607 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
amd64.
Relevant part:
> debian/rules build
>
FYI: The status of the pd-zexy source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.1-1.1
Current version: 2.2.3-2
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you
Your message dated Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:00:13 +0100
with message-id <4cdab37d.8020...@iem.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#602558: pd-zexy: Built with -mfpmath=sse -msse which
desupports athlons, anything else older than pentium3
has caused the Debian Bug report #602558,
regarding pd-zexy: Buil
On 2010-11-05 21:40, Robert Jacobs wrote:
> Subject: pd-zexy: Built with -mfpmath=sse -msse which desupports athlons,
> anything else older than pentium3
> Package: pd-zexy
> Version: 2.2.3-1
> Severity: normal
>
> *** Please type your report below this line ***
>
>
Subject: pd-zexy: Built with -mfpmath=sse -msse which desupports athlons,
anything else older than pentium3
Package: pd-zexy
Version: 2.2.3-1
Severity: normal
*** Please type your report below this line ***
My desktop (still an athlon tbird) doesn't support SSE, so trying to
use the z~ ext
On 29/08/10 17:50, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 21:35 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:44 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
Also it seems as if dh_shlibdeps looks only for .so-files. I haven't
figured out what trickery was used in
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 21:35 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:44 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Also it seems as if dh_shlibdeps looks only for .so-files. I haven't
> > > figured out what trickery was used in the gem package to let it find
> > > also .pd_l
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:44 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> >
> > Also it seems as if dh_shlibdeps looks only for .so-files. I haven't
> > figured out what trickery was used in the gem package to let it find
> > also .pd_linux-files. But having a plain .pd-linux file in the temporary
> > d
On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 00:18 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
> > On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of th
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 19:24 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 27/08/10 18:18, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
> >> On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> >>
> >>
On 27/08/10 18:18, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
>> On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools lik
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:11:16PM +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
I actually do
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
> > lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
> >
> the
On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
> lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
>
> I actually do not think that dh_shlibdeps has any role here, just
> mention
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Indeed this looks weird. If you consider it sane to use this
approach then I guess it won't matter much. But striving towards the
ultimate, if this is a dirty hack then please e
heless, it complies with it...
even on amd64? There are some architectures that are pretty picky
about position independent code. BTW that's why there is this rule
in debian policy in the first place.
pd-zexy compiles everything with "-fPIC" an ALL (including amd64)
platforms
en you're
>> right. But..
>>
>>> nevertheless, it complies with it...
>>
>> even on amd64? There are some architectures that are pretty picky about
>> position independent code. BTW that's why there is this rule in debian
>> policy in the first place.
>>
md64? There are some architectures that are pretty picky about
> position independent code. BTW that's why there is this rule in debian
> policy in the first place.
>
pd-zexy compiles everything with "-fPIC" an ALL (including amd64)
platforms[1].
the discussion arose, beca
t; --no-optimize or --no-buildtime-featuredetect flag so we can ensure
>> compatibility generally for the archs we target - or if not too much to
>> ask then above described runtime detection?
>
>
> i thought it was there, but cannot find it anymore :-) (probably it's in
> s
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:38:42 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2010-08-23 09:25, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>> anyhow, i had a look at the debian policy, and it says (in chapter 10.2
>> Libraries on todays http://www.debian.org/doc/debi
On 2010-08-23 09:25, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> anyhow, i had a look at the debian policy, and it says (in chapter 10.2
> Libraries on todays http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html):
> "If the package is architecture: any, then the
we target - or if not too much to
> ask then above described runtime detection?
i thought it was there, but cannot find it anymore :-) (probably it's in
some other lib of mine)
as things stand now, pd-zexy has no runtime cpu-detection support, so
the best bet is to completely disable the SSE
On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Indeed this looks weird. If you consider it sane to use this approach
> then I guess it won't matter much. But striving towards the ultimate,
> if this is a dirty hack then please elaborate on possible alternative
> approaches - even if tricky to
Hi IOhannes,
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:09:22PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Please quote only relevant parts. PGP signing hints are never relevant
to quote.
On 08/20/2010 12:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I finalized the packaging and up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/20/2010 12:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I finalized the packaging and uploaded to the NEW queue, where it is now
> waiting for ftpmasters to (hopefully) approve it.
cool.
i noticed that up till now, it has built everywhere but
- - linux/mips
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:03:22PM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
i manually fixed the FIXMEs and pushed.
so i guess we are almost there.
Indeed we are.
I finalized the packaging and uploaded to the NEW queue, where it is now
waiting for ftpmasters to (hopefully) approve it.
I did spot a
On 2010-08-19 10:53, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> debian/copyright still needs to be maintained "by hand". There is not
> yet any DEP5 validators or parsers, only the work-in-progress definition
> itself, at http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ - so hava a go at reading
> that :-)
thanks for the clarifi
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:29:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-19 10:23, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-18 20:38, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
After I stomped the topmost one about source URL (puredata.info was
down earlier today, apparently), there are now 2 FIXMEs left.
On 2010-08-19 10:23, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2010-08-18 20:38, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>> After I stomped the topmost one about source URL (puredata.info was down
>> earlier today, apparently), there are now 2 FIXMEs left.
>>
ah i was so busy answering your questions, that i forgot to r
On 2010-08-18 20:38, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> After I stomped the topmost one about source URL (puredata.info was down
> earlier today, apparently), there are now 2 FIXMEs left.
>
> Upper one is obviously a typo, so not a show-stopper. I would suggest
> you fix it upstream for your next relea
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 07:28:15PM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-18 14:27, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
thanks for the hint.
i noticed that upstream's README.txt includes several more authors,
which do not appear in any source file and definitely not (yet) in
debian/changelog
Pleas
On 2010-08-18 14:27, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> thanks for the hint.
>> i noticed that upstream's README.txt includes several more authors,
>> which do not appear in any source file and definitely not (yet) in
>> debian/changelog
>
> Please have a look at the changes I pushed just now, especially
your fine code.
just for the sake of completeness, i want to point out that pd-zexy has
been distributed in Debian and derivatives for more than 5 years. the
copyright did not seem to be such an issue until know.
this however can only mean that nobody had a look so close as you guys.
upstre
debian/changelog
>
> You are free to not want to improve clarity of upstream copyright and
> licensing, but you risk some distributors then choosing not to want to
> redistribute your fine code.
>
just for the sake of completeness, i want to point out that pd-zexy has
been distributed i
On 2010-08-17 18:36, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> So I dare ignore your "but" above and (parallel to continuing below
> discussion) I will start working on copyright-check and rewriting
> debian/copyright using DEP5 machine-readable format.
>
> If you disagree with that, please shout, so I can stop
On 2010-08-17 18:36, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> So I dare ignore your "but" above and (parallel to continuing below
my "but" was really mostly their, as the discussion on debian/copyright
and the discussion on how the upstream copyright headers look like
intermingled.
they should be discussed se
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:34:57PM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-17 14:56, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Would you mind me adding the CDBS copyright-check routine?
i don't object, but:
I can imagine how that may feel odd since you yourself are upstream
for the code, but it does
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
