On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
I'm trying to use dh_movefiles to fill a package-dev directory but
something change and I don't understand what is expected from me.
# dh_movefiles
dh_movefiles: I was asked to move files from debian/tmp to debian/tmp.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:59:12AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
I'm trying to use dh_movefiles to fill a package-dev directory but
something change and I don't understand what is expected from me.
# dh_movefiles
Shame on me.
I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell.
Then my DH_COMPAT was not set.
Thank you for your clue.
Christophe
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:59:12AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
I'm
I want to adopt osh (#89433), but I am not a Debian developer,
so I can't change the title of the wnpp bug until I find a sponsor.
If you are interested, please sponsor me.
My .deb of osh is available at:
http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
Hi mentors,
I have a package that install two binaries, one of them have to be
stripped while the other have not to.
The file foo (for example) have not to be stripped (is a bytecode
executable, so stripping will remove the bytecode and the executable
will become useless), the file foo.opt have
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:32:15PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Hi mentors,
I have a package that install two binaries, one of them have to be
stripped while the other have not to.
The file foo (for example) have not to be stripped (is a bytecode
executable, so stripping will remove
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:23:54AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
How can I strip only foo.opt using dh_strip?
The short answer is: you can't.
In dh_strip:
foreach my $f (@{$dh{EXCLUDE}}) {
return if ($fn=~m/\Q$f\E/);
}
I saw it, but I hoped that some test elsewhere
I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and
that I intend to become a maintener for.
There are two remaining (known) problems during the package build.
First I would like to avoid uploading full source but I miss something
to generate the diff file.
I've the
Oohara Yuuma [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit:
Note that osh is a setuid root shell and it does *NOT* drop root privilege
when it executes a command. Be extremely careful when you configure or
use it. (osh is installed in /usr/sbin/osh and its permission is 4754.
It is not for a
Oohara Yuuma [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit:
My .deb of osh is available at:
http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7-9.diff.gz
Christophe,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:49:49AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and
that I intend to become a maintener for.
There are two remaining (known) problems during the package build.
First I would like to avoid
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 05:43:37PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
So, don't use dh_strip. dh_strip is a simple tool for simple
configurations; if you have one binary you need stripped, and one binary
you need left alone, and dh_strip doesn't do the trick, call strip
yourself.
I've the upstream original tarball on the base directory :
gphoto-2.0beta3.tar.gz
Note that the upstream is 'gphoto' without '2' but the debian package
name is 'gphoto2'
The source tree is in
gphoto2-2.0beta3/
But when I build I get
dpkg-genchanges: warning: missing Section for
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Incidentally, why is the source package called 'gphoto2'? I see that
there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by
gphoto 2.0? Are there reasons that someone would need both gphoto and
gphoto2
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:15:13PM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
I want to adopt osh (#89433), but I am not a Debian developer.
Is it OK just to change the title of the wnpp bug and find a sponsor?
(I am in the NM queue.)
Please find a sponsor
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The file foo (for example) have not to be stripped (is a bytecode
executable, so stripping will remove the bytecode and the executable
will become useless), [...]
Isn't putting valuable bytecode in an ELF section that is a target of
strip kludgy
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit:
Is it OK just to change the title of the wnpp bug and find a sponsor?
(I am in the NM queue.)
Please find a sponsor first. Thanks.
This is my opinion only,
It is also nice if the prospective NM will try and put some
trace of work in
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:12:04PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Incidentally, is there a reason that the bytecode version stores
important information in the sections that are stripped? It seems to me
that this is a bug in the package's build sequence or in the compiler.
Or is it a file
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:55:56PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Isn't putting valuable bytecode in an ELF section that is a target of
strip kludgy behaviour in itself? This seems a bit like installing
files into /var/tmp.
These are not standard executable, see my just posted reply.
Cheers.
You have been subscribed to dailyspecial with the email address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:13:30PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
You have to rename the original tarball to
gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
You mean I should only rename it ?
Christophe
--
Christophe Barbé
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
rename the tarball, and you'll be set.
You mean I should only rename it ?
Yep.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:54:00PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:12:04PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Incidentally, is there a reason that the bytecode version stores
important information in the sections that are stripped? It seems to me
that this is a bug
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
rename the tarball, and you'll be
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:08:02AM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the
Title: ¼¼ÀϾÆÀÌ
¹Ùµð ÇÁ·¹½º
(´ÙÀ̾îÆ®¿îµ¿±â±¸)
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:52:39AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars.
Hey guys,
christophe barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
Yes, it has to be gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
See? It has to be a _ not a - between the packagename and the version-
number.
so long...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:36:31 +0900,
Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some things I noticed:
o MAXPATHLEN is not available on some systems.
struct.h says:
| #ifndef MAXPATHLEN
| # define MAXPATHLEN 1024
| #endif
p Is writing something like:
Note that this license is not compatible
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
I'm trying to use dh_movefiles to fill a package-dev directory but
something change and I don't understand what is expected from me.
# dh_movefiles
dh_movefiles: I was asked to move files from debian/tmp to debian/tmp.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:59:12AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
I'm trying to use dh_movefiles to fill a package-dev directory but
something change and I don't understand what is expected from me.
# dh_movefiles
Shame on me.
I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell.
Then my DH_COMPAT was not set.
Thank you for your clue.
Christophe
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:59:12AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:19:27PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
I'm trying
I want to adopt osh (#89433), but I am not a Debian developer,
so I can't change the title of the wnpp bug until I find a sponsor.
If you are interested, please sponsor me.
My .deb of osh is available at:
http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
Hi mentors,
I have a package that install two binaries, one of them have to be
stripped while the other have not to.
The file foo (for example) have not to be stripped (is a bytecode
executable, so stripping will remove the bytecode and the executable
will become useless), the file foo.opt have
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:32:15PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Hi mentors,
I have a package that install two binaries, one of them have to be
stripped while the other have not to.
The file foo (for example) have not to be stripped (is a bytecode
executable, so stripping will remove the
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:23:54AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
How can I strip only foo.opt using dh_strip?
The short answer is: you can't.
In dh_strip:
foreach my $f (@{$dh{EXCLUDE}}) {
return if ($fn=~m/\Q$f\E/);
}
I saw it, but I hoped that some test elsewhere
I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and
that I intend to become a maintener for.
There are two remaining (known) problems during the package build.
First I would like to avoid uploading full source but I miss something
to generate the diff file.
I've the upstream
Oohara Yuuma [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit:
Note that osh is a setuid root shell and it does *NOT* drop root privilege
when it executes a command. Be extremely careful when you configure or
use it. (osh is installed in /usr/sbin/osh and its permission is 4754.
It is not for a
Oohara Yuuma [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit:
My .deb of osh is available at:
http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7-9.diff.gz
Christophe,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:49:49AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and
that I intend to become a maintener for.
There are two remaining (known) problems during the package build.
First I would like to avoid
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 05:43:37PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
So, don't use dh_strip. dh_strip is a simple tool for simple
configurations; if you have one binary you need stripped, and one binary
you need left alone, and dh_strip doesn't do the trick, call strip
yourself.
I've the upstream original tarball on the base directory :
gphoto-2.0beta3.tar.gz
Note that the upstream is 'gphoto' without '2' but the debian package
name is 'gphoto2'
The source tree is in
gphoto2-2.0beta3/
But when I build I get
dpkg-genchanges: warning: missing Section for
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit:
Is it OK just to change the title of the wnpp bug and find a sponsor?
(I am in the NM queue.)
Please find a sponsor first. Thanks.
This is my opinion only,
It is also nice if the prospective NM will try and put some
trace of work in
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:12:04PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Incidentally, is there a reason that the bytecode version stores
important information in the sections that are stripped? It seems to me
that this is a bug in the package's build sequence or in the compiler.
Or is it a file
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:55:56PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Isn't putting valuable bytecode in an ELF section that is a target of
strip kludgy behaviour in itself? This seems a bit like installing
files into /var/tmp.
These are not standard executable, see my just posted reply.
Cheers.
You have been subscribed to dailyspecial with the email address
debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Christophe,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:49:49AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
I'm trying to build a clean gphoto2 package which has been orphaned and
that I intend to become a maintener for.
There are two remaining (known)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:13:30PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
You have to rename the original tarball to
gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz. Note: rename, not repack.
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
You mean I should only rename it ?
Christophe
--
Christophe Barbé
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
rename the tarball, and you'll be set.
You mean I should only rename it ?
Yep.
pgpaGsE2tzeHm.pgp
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:54:00PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:12:04PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Incidentally, is there a reason that the bytecode version stores
important information in the sections that are stripped? It seems to me
that this is a bug
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can cope with it. Just
rename the tarball, and you'll be set.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:08:02AM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the
Title: 세일아이
바디 프레스
(다이어트운동기구)
시중가 39,000원
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the Debian diff) can
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:52:39AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 00:01, christophe barbé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars.
Hey guys,
christophe barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just done that and finally got the following on the base directory:
gphoto2-2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
Yes, it has to be gphoto2_2.0beta3.orig.tar.gz
See? It has to be a _ not a - between the packagename and the version-
number.
so long...
david
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:36:31 +0900,
Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some things I noticed:
o MAXPATHLEN is not available on some systems.
struct.h says:
| #ifndef MAXPATHLEN
| # define MAXPATHLEN 1024
| #endif
p Is writing something like:
Note that this license is not compatible
60 matches
Mail list logo
