On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
I maintain a package wich is console based and receives an url
to download as argument (at least).
I did not make an item for it on Debian menu because it's no
good to add a default URL ;)
I was wondering about creating a script that would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Lunz) writes:
But I was wondering when I can expect autoconf 2.50 to make it into
testing.
The problem is that autoconf depends on autoconf2.13 and autoconf2.13
depends on autoconf (= 2.50). I don't think the testing scripts can
currently resolve this kind of cycle.
Simon == Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon lintian complains about empty packages not having a copyright file. I
Simon think it should silently accept empty packages (Severity set to normal
Simon because it might actually stop packages from being installed).
Even an
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jason Lunz wrote:
I'm packaging a program for multiple distributions that build-depends on
autoconf 2.50. [...]
You might better avoid this if you can. Packages made by autoconf do
not usually depend on autoconf for the build, that's why the configure
script is shipped
Hello all,
I'm working on a package (rdesktop-1.0.0) which is virtually unusable
without a large (1/2 meg) unified patch maintained by someone other than
the author (a friend of mine who is flat out with other committments
right now). Anyway I want to package it as:
rdesktop-1.0.0+19.6.6 (ie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm packaging a program for multiple distributions that build-depends on
autoconf 2.50. [...]
You might better avoid this if you can. Packages made by autoconf do
not usually depend on autoconf for the build, that's why the configure
script is shipped within the
i'm not the maintainer of aspell, anyway i'm trying to make it ok,
with permession of its maintainer.
it doesn't compile on arm, the log is here
http://buildd.armlinux.org/~buildd/build.php?pkg%3Daspell%26ver%3D0.32.6-3.2%26arch%3Darm%26stamp%3D993266812
what i don't understand follows:
***
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 09:00:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Even an otherwise empty package contains metadata files (or
else what good does it do?), and these metadata files need a
copyright file giving the license under which they are distributable,
So I don't think
Hello mentors,
I have something wrong in my package(poedit) related to package name.
Among thousands of debian packages, potool has the same command name - poedit - as my
package command name. The source is absoultely different!
In this case, should be the package name changed into another
Hello,
I'm on my first package. The upstream people provide just a perl script which should
go to /usr/bin. I'm reading the instructions of the maintainer's guide
(/usr/share/doc/maint-guide/) and all the steps and examples are desgned for creatinga
binary package from a source tarball.
I've
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 03:13:31AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Hello,
I'm on my first package. The upstream people provide just a perl script which should
go to /usr/bin. I'm reading the instructions of the maintainer's guide
(/usr/share/doc/maint-guide/) and all the steps and examples are
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Robert Millan wrote:
# Build architecture-independent files here.
binary-indep: build install
# We have nothing to do by default.
# Build architecture-dependent files here.
binary-arch: build install
Where's all the commands to build the package?
Try something like
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2001 10:13:33 +0900
Yooseong Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
I have something wrong in my package(poedit) related to package name.
Among thousands of debian packages, potool has the same command name - poedit - as
my package command name. The source is absoultely different!
Simon == Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon lintian complains about empty packages not having a copyright file. I
Simon think it should silently accept empty packages (Severity set to normal
Simon because it might actually stop packages from being installed).
Even an
Hello all,
I'm working on a package (rdesktop-1.0.0) which is virtually unusable
without a large (1/2 meg) unified patch maintained by someone other than
the author (a friend of mine who is flat out with other committments
right now). Anyway I want to package it as:
rdesktop-1.0.0+19.6.6
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm packaging a program for multiple distributions that build-depends on
autoconf 2.50. [...]
You might better avoid this if you can. Packages made by autoconf do
not usually depend on autoconf for the build, that's why the configure
script is shipped within the
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Sam Johnston wrote:
How do I override the name of the package so as to indicate that the
patch has been applied? Surely it's not simply a case of doing:
mv rdesktop-1.0.0 rdesktop-1.0.0+19.6.6 ?
The version information is taken from the topmost changelog entry.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 09:00:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Even an otherwise empty package contains metadata files (or
else what good does it do?), and these metadata files need a
copyright file giving the license under which they are distributable,
So I don't think
Hello,
I'm on my first package. The upstream people provide just a perl script which
should go to /usr/bin. I'm reading the instructions of the maintainer's guide
(/usr/share/doc/maint-guide/) and all the steps and examples are desgned for
creatinga binary package from a source tarball.
I've
I build a package tonite and I got wrong permissions on files :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/debian]$ ls -ld multiseti_0.6.0-3*
-rw---1 eric eric 1913 jun 27 02:48
multiseti_0.6.0-3.diff.gz
-rw-r--r--1 eric eric 620 jun 27 02:48 multiseti_0.6.0-3.dsc
-rw-r--r--1
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 03:13:31AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Hello,
I'm on my first package. The upstream people provide just a perl script which
should go to /usr/bin. I'm reading the instructions of the maintainer's guide
(/usr/share/doc/maint-guide/) and all the steps and examples are
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Robert Millan wrote:
# Build architecture-independent files here.
binary-indep: build install
# We have nothing to do by default.
# Build architecture-dependent files here.
binary-arch: build install
Where's all the commands to build the package?
Try something like
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2001 10:13:33 +0900
Yooseong Yang [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
I have something wrong in my package(poedit) related to package name.
Among thousands of debian packages, potool has the same command name - poedit
- as
my package command name. The source is absoultely different!
23 matches
Mail list logo
