On 19 Jan 2002 00:02:18 -0500
Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello All,
Hello
I am not a Debian Package Maintainer (as of yet). And this is probably
not the right mailing list for these questions. If not, please let me
know so I can move the discussion to the right place.
this is the
Title: »õ ÆäÀÌÁö 1
¾È³çÇϼ¼¿ä.
ºÒ¾¦ ¸ÞÀÏÀ» µå·Á¼ ¹Ì¾ÈÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ÁÁÀº CD°¡ ÀÖ¾î¼ ¼Ò°³ µå¸±±î ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. Ȥ ºÒÄèÇÏ¼Ì´Ù¸é »ç°ú µå¸³´Ï´Ù.
±ÍÇÏÀÇ ÀÌ ¸ÞÀÏ ÀÌ¿Ü¿¡´Â ¾î¶°ÇÑ Á¤º¸µµ °¡Áö°í ÀÖÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. ´Ü 1ȸ ¹ß¼ÛÇÏ¸ç ¼ö½Å °ÅºÎ¸¦ ÇÏ½Ç ¶§´Â ¹Ý¼ÛÇÏ¿©
Áֽøé Àý´ë ¹ß¼ÛµÇ´Â ÀÏÀÌ
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye 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there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by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
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye 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there is still a 'gphoto' package in Debian; is that not superseded by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
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:35:14AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
Shame on me.
I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell.
Then my DH_COMPAT was not set.
Please explain why DH_COMPAT was not set? It should be set by the
debian/rules Makefile not before you run
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 10:45:41AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
I was saying that
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug,nostrip debuild
is syntactically incorrect, and it looks bad to have it in debian/rules.
Guess I should read the whole thread before writing any comments next
time. Now I see your point
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:36:31AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
p Is writing something like:
Note that this license is not compatible with the GPL. This means that
you can't redistribute the binary of osh if it is complied with libraries
licensed under the GPL. The debian package is
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:21:23PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
debian/rules says:
| # to compile with debugging information:
| # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug,nostrip
That won't work, because it is syntactically incorrect,
and also this is not a place to document how to write
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:05:26AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Is it not a upstream choice ?
But this package include a command-line frontend.
Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
gphoto2: command-line front-end
libgphoto2 : libraries
I might be missing something, but what is the soname for
libgphoto2 ?
Sorry I don't understand your question.
Could you reformulate your question?
libgphoto2 Package would probably contain
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2 which is a symlink to
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2.0.0 or something
I'm thinking about packaging gphoto2-2.0 beta4dev9 instead of beta3.
How should I number my package to be able to provide later a beta4?
gphoto2-2.0beta2 is in the archive today.
So as already discuted here, I will use gphoto2-2.0beta4
If I do something like 2.0beta4-0.dev9
I should be able to
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 06:43:49PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
I'm thinking about packaging gphoto2-2.0 beta4dev9 instead of beta3.
How should I number my package to be able to provide later a beta4?
gphoto2-2.0beta2 is in the archive today.
So as already discuted here, I will use
On 19 Jan 2002 00:02:18 -0500
Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello All,
Hello
I am not a Debian Package Maintainer (as of yet). And this is probably
not the right mailing list for these questions. If not, please let me
know so I can move the discussion to the right place.
this is the right
Title: 새 페이지 1
안녕하세요.
불쑥 메일을 드려서 미안합니다. 좋은 CD가 있어서 소개 드릴까 합니다. 혹 불쾌하셨다면 사과 드립니다.
귀하의 이 메일 이외에는 어떠한 정보도 가지고 있지 않습니다. 단 1회 발송하며 수신 거부를 하실 때는 반송하여
주시면 절대 발송되는 일이 없습니다. 그리고 희망찬 2002년이 되시길 바랍니다.
[컴맹/넷맹 탈출 CD특징- CD 넣고 클릭만 하시면 됩니다!]-내용을 끝까지 읽어보시면 38,000원으로 짭잘한 부업가능!
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye 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
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:35:37PM -0800, Yves Arrouye 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
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:35:14AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
Shame on me.
I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell.
Then my DH_COMPAT was not set.
Please explain why DH_COMPAT was not set? It should be set by the
debian/rules Makefile not before you run debuild
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 10:45:41AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
I was saying that
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug,nostrip debuild
is syntactically incorrect, and it looks bad to have it in debian/rules.
Guess I should read the whole thread before writing any comments next
time. Now I see your point
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:21:23PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
debian/rules says:
| # to compile with debugging information:
| # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug,nostrip
That won't work, because it is syntactically incorrect,
and also this is not a place to document how to write
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:36:31AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
p Is writing something like:
Note that this license is not compatible with the GPL. This means that
you can't redistribute the binary of osh if it is complied with libraries
licensed under the GPL. The debian package is
Is it not a upstream choice ?
But this package include a command-line frontend.
Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
gphoto2: command-line front-end
libgphoto2 : libraries
libgphoto2-dev : to build others front-ends.
And perhaps a doc package but it
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 02:05:26AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Is it not a upstream choice ?
But this package include a command-line frontend.
Perhaps I should split it in three package (instead of 2) :
gphoto2: command-line front-end
libgphoto2 : libraries
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:55:09PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
These are not standard executable, see my just posted reply.
Can you send me a small executable like that one in question? I would
really like to take a look what is going on there.
cu
Torsten
pgpSx5Crkfpyf.pgp
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 06:26:40PM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:35:14AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
Shame on me.
I was trying to do each setep manually from a fresh fakerooted shell.
Then my DH_COMPAT was not set.
Please explain why DH_COMPAT was not
I might be missing something, but what is the soname for
libgphoto2 ?
Sorry I don't understand your question.
Could you reformulate your question?
libgphoto2 Package would probably contain
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2 which is a symlink to
/usr/lib/libgphoto.so.2.0.0 or something similar
I'm thinking about packaging gphoto2-2.0 beta4dev9 instead of beta3.
How should I number my package to be able to provide later a beta4?
gphoto2-2.0beta2 is in the archive today.
So as already discuted here, I will use gphoto2-2.0beta4
If I do something like 2.0beta4-0.dev9
I should be able to
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 06:43:49PM -0500, christophe barb? wrote:
I'm thinking about packaging gphoto2-2.0 beta4dev9 instead of beta3.
How should I number my package to be able to provide later a beta4?
gphoto2-2.0beta2 is in the archive today.
So as already discuted here, I will use
27 matches
Mail list logo
