Re: Package name change
Hi Hereward! What do I do if I want to change a package's name? If you mean have a different debian name to the upstream all you have to do is change it in debian/control and in then add a new changelog enty changing the package name on the first line. No, what happened was that I wrote a tetris clone and due to the patent on the name released it under the name tclassic (Classic Tetris(tm)), but now I came up with a better name: tint (Tetris is not Tetris(tm)). The problem is I already released the debian package tclassic, so I obviously need to get that out of pools if I change the name. The question is how? -- Regards Abraham Timing must be perfect now. Two-timing must be better than perfect. ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ msg04960/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Package name change
Hi! What do I do if I want to change a package's name? -- Regards Abraham Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in. -- Robert Frost, The Death of the Hired Man ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ pgppdnvkOvAE8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Package name change
Hi Hereward! What do I do if I want to change a package's name? If you mean have a different debian name to the upstream all you have to do is change it in debian/control and in then add a new changelog enty changing the package name on the first line. No, what happened was that I wrote a tetris clone and due to the patent on the name released it under the name tclassic (Classic Tetris(tm)), but now I came up with a better name: tint (Tetris is not Tetris(tm)). The problem is I already released the debian package tclassic, so I obviously need to get that out of pools if I change the name. The question is how? -- Regards Abraham Timing must be perfect now. Two-timing must be better than perfect. ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ pgp87Rfs0iGUG.pgp Description: PGP signature
dupload oddities
Hi! I'm struggling to upload a new revision of a package. Basically I have: dietlibc_0.11-2.diff.gz dietlibc_0.11-2_i386.changes dietlibc-dev_0.11-2_i386.deb dietlibc_0.11-2.dsc dietlibc_0.11.orig.tar.gz Since this is a new revision, if I dupload dietlibc_0.11-2_i386.changes it won't upload the original tarball which is fine, except that somehow, the first revision in pool directory looks like this: dietlibc_0.11-1.dsc dietlibc_0.11-1.tar.gz dietlibc-dev_0.11-1_i386.deb dietlibc-dev_0.11-1_mips.deb dietlibc-dev_0.11-1_sparc.deb which causes the upload to be rejected since there is no dietlibc_0.11.orig.tar.gz: snip -- snip -- snip From: Debian Installer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: dietlibc_0.11-2_i386.changes REJECTED To: Abraham vd Merwe [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Katie-Rejection: automatic (moo) X-Katie: $Revision: 1.59 $ Rejected: dietlibc_0.11-2.dsc refers to dietlibc_0.11.orig.tar.gz, but I can't find it in +Incoming or in the pool. snip -- snip -- snip Any ideas how I can get the original tarball there so the upload won't be rejected? And also, why did the original tarbal and diff get merged in the pool? -- Regards Abraham Take it easy, we're in a hurry. ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ pgpH2qLXVfj8c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Architecture
Hi! How do I specify all the architectures a package can build on? For instance, I have a package that can only build on the following architectures: i386 alpha arm powerpc sparc mips mipsel Now, first of all, I'm not sure about the names. I can't find a place that name the exact names you put in the Architecture field, only pages telling you about the supported archs. In particular I'm wondering about mips/mipsel. Ok, now for the real question. I could do this: Architecture: i386 alpha arm powerpc sparc mips mipsel in my control file, but according to the debian policy manual (D.2.3), there can only be a single field. However, I've seen packages that have multiple fields, e.g. libggi So can I do it or not? Also, if I can't what do I do. Someone filed a bug report that this package doesn't compile on hppa and I'd like to fix this asap (See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=104688repeatmerged=yes for details on the bug report) -- Regards Abraham All phone calls are obscene. -- Karen Elizabeth Gordon ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ PGP signature
Re: Architecture
Hi Robert! For instance, I have a package that can only build on the following architectures: i386 alpha arm powerpc sparc mips mipsel #104688 states that hppa has failed. How do you know that sh can't build it, though? Or hurd-386[1]? Or an architecture that is not even known yet? No, in this case listing the architectures is indeed the right way. The package in question is a C library which at the moment only supports the mentioned platforms. I'd have to write quite a bit of code to actually get it to support different platforms as well. -- Regards Abraham court, n.: A place where they dispense with justice. -- Arthur Train ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ PGP signature
Re: Architecture
Hi Robert! For instance, I have a package that can only build on the following architectures: i386 alpha arm powerpc sparc mips mipsel #104688 states that hppa has failed. How do you know that sh can't build it, though? Or hurd-386[1]? Or an architecture that is not even known yet? No, in this case listing the architectures is indeed the right way. The package in question is a C library which at the moment only supports the mentioned platforms. I'd have to write quite a bit of code to actually get it to support different platforms as well. -- Regards Abraham court, n.: A place where they dispense with justice. -- Arthur Train ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ pgpomG2L7Sfup.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: control file question
Hi Julian! The problem I have is that I have a library with same host architecture but different cross compilation targets, so I have things like: Build-Depends supports an arch specification, like: Build-Depends: libc-arm-version (=2.1) [arm] See policy section 7.1 for details. I know about that, but that doesn't help since it won't be compiled on that host architecture. It's for cross compiling, so for something like dietlibc-arm-dev you'll get Build-Depends that differ from dietlibc-dev on the _same_ host architecture. -- Regards Abraham I'm also against BODY-SURFING!! ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ PGP signature
control file question
Hi! Can I put a different Build-Depends for each binary package in a control file or can there only be a Build-Depends for the source package? The problem I have is that I have a library with same host architecture but different cross compilation targets, so I have things like: dietlibc-dev (same target as host) dietlibc-arm-dev (arm target, different host) dietlibc-powerpc-dev (powerpc target, different host) . . . The first one's Build-Depends is normal, but the rest also have cross compile suites as Build dependancies, e.g. the dietlibc-arm-dev Build-Depends would look like this: Build-Depends: debhelper ( 3.0.0), binutils-arm (= 2.9.5.0.12), gcc-arm (= 1:2.95.2-12e4), cpp-arm (= 1:2.95.2-12e4), libc6-dev-arm (= 2.1.3-8e4), task-cross-arm (= 0.2) Obviously putting all of these dependancies in the source package will result in a package which is virtually unbuildable on almost all systems out there. -- Regards Abraham Am I SHOPLIFTING? ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ pgpeqxxRRsD1F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: control file question
Hi Julian! The problem I have is that I have a library with same host architecture but different cross compilation targets, so I have things like: Build-Depends supports an arch specification, like: Build-Depends: libc-arm-version (=2.1) [arm] See policy section 7.1 for details. I know about that, but that doesn't help since it won't be compiled on that host architecture. It's for cross compiling, so for something like dietlibc-arm-dev you'll get Build-Depends that differ from dietlibc-dev on the _same_ host architecture. -- Regards Abraham I'm also against BODY-SURFING!! ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ pgpxMKSFsKnJr.pgp Description: PGP signature
purging log files
Hi! How is log files purged when a package is removed using --purge? The only control files I can see that influence log files, is logrotate. If I put a rm -f ... in postrm, it's not what I want either since then it'll remove the logs with a --remove as well. Should I just leave logs lying around or is there some (correct) way to get rid of them? -- Regards Abraham Preserve wildlife -- pickle a squirrel today! ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ PGP signature
purging log files
Hi! How is log files purged when a package is removed using --purge? The only control files I can see that influence log files, is logrotate. If I put a rm -f ... in postrm, it's not what I want either since then it'll remove the logs with a --remove as well. Should I just leave logs lying around or is there some (correct) way to get rid of them? -- Regards Abraham Preserve wildlife -- pickle a squirrel today! ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ pgpUYTOK9mjcC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Fwd: [postmaster@wap.hu: User Quota Exceeded]
Hi! Any ideas what this means? How can I exceed my quota when one of my packages gets to the main site? -- Regards Abraham Laura's Law: No child throws up in the bathroom. ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ ---BeginMessage--- Fatal Error: \n \nQuota for user [EMAIL PROTECTED] exceeded! \n \nOriginal message follows: \n \n -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:27:05 +0200 Source: juice Binary: juice Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.03f Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Abraham vd Merwe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Abraham vd Merwe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: juice - playlist editor / player frontend Changes: juice (0.03f) unstable; urgency=low . * Updated the package for official debian maintaining * Changed debian control files to be 3.5.2 standards compliant Files: 63be19c5ea4f0999e93269ded1b6ac07 528 sound optional juice_0.03f.dsc 7a704859220be43ca7d7219472ad1d68 129300 sound optional juice_0.03f.tar.gz ec0b723325d7c3b178b1bd0c8ca758ea 106186 sound optional juice_0.03f_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7Coo1zvVjZitVWu4RApjuAKCtxFswup+eE9mxa0CVbRYQl0oFwACeIkvv g+iIUgoYIo4v231oyMvse/8= =HtxH -END PGP SIGNATURE- Installed: juice_0.03f.dsc to pool/main/j/juice/juice_0.03f.dsc juice_0.03f.tar.gz to pool/main/j/juice/juice_0.03f.tar.gz juice_0.03f_i386.deb to pool/main/j/juice/juice_0.03f_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---End Message--- pgpnZERlqlYqc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debstd woes
Hi Colin! However, if I run debstd, I get the following: One good question is why are you still using debstd? :) Hiehie, yeah, I discovered that debstd is ancient (so is 3.1.1 standard, we're already at 3.5.2 :P) Anyway, I fixed it (just used dh_make, etc.) I really think we should drop the debmake package from debian though since this package is really old and just helps to get you on the wrong track. -- Regards Abraham Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. -- Albert Einstein ___ Abraham vd Merwe [ZR1BBQ] - The Debian Project P.O. Box 3472, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602 Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http: http://people.debian.org/~abz/ pgpqEWBvjpfAP.pgp Description: PGP signature
