Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
* Add your file to the package somewhere
* Modify debian/rules (or possibly one of the debhelper config files
if it's using debhelper) to install your file at a particular
location
[...]
Is using the install(1) command recommended, or is
Robert Bihlmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank Gevaerts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into
non-free (don't
Agney,
I'm looking for information about debian developer/maintainer.
A maintainer is someone who maintains a package, while a developer has
an account on the Debian machines and permission to upload. These two
are basically distinct (i.e. you can maintain a package without being a
developer
Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
Hmm, dh_make is trying to do a similar approach. Why not use that way?
I like to have the original .tar.gz exactly as I downloaded it. dh_make
unpacks the source and repacks it to a new .orig.tar.gz.
Why would dh_make go out of its way to violate best practices like
Steve Kemp wrote:
As an aside I wonder how well SE-Linux, or the other improved
security patches handle installation issues? I know that by installing
a random package you're effectively giving the package maintainer
root upon your box.
I'd imagine that a package installation
I am (have already) building a new package from the cvs tree, but my question
is:
Shall I run the autobuild (called bootstrap) on my system and go with the
package using those results or I shall modify my debian/rules to create the
Makefile.in and friends during compilation time?
It
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a warning about usage
restrictions but no definite
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:46:58PM -0500, Kevin J. Kalupson wrote:
Checking the license on some software the I would like to add.
Does this copyright meet the debian requirements. I'm thinking this package
would end up in non-free if it does qualify.
/*** Copyright Notice
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:25:16PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:41:18AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
In this case, should the package just document what the use
should do (it will be different for each MTA) or at least
detect which MTA is installed and copy an
On Sat, 01 Mar 2003, Agney Lopes Roth Ferraz wrote:
I'm looking for information about debian developer/maintainer.
http://nm.debian.org
I read in debian page that the only way to became maintainer is developing
some nice program, but I have two friends that are only who make the .deb
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a
On 20030301T132435+0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Is there a list of removed packages available anywhere, together with
reasons for the removal?
http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt lists removals starting some
two years ago.
F-Prot for GNU/Linux _has_ been distributed by others, e.g. by
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:22:20PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Well I fully agree with you, but let me explain: Completely by chance
I took over maintainership of the f-prot-installer package, which is
in contrib. Since an installer package may easily fail (when the
vendor changes file names,
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
* Add your file to the package somewhere
* Modify debian/rules (or possibly one of the debhelper config files
if it's using debhelper) to install your file at a particular
location
[...]
Is using the install(1) command recommended, or is
Robert Bihlmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank Gevaerts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into
non-free (don't
Agney,
I'm looking for information about debian developer/maintainer.
A maintainer is someone who maintains a package, while a developer has
an account on the Debian machines and permission to upload. These two
are basically distinct (i.e. you can maintain a package without being a
developer
Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
Hmm, dh_make is trying to do a similar approach. Why not use that way?
I like to have the original .tar.gz exactly as I downloaded it. dh_make
unpacks the source and repacks it to a new .orig.tar.gz.
Why would dh_make go out of its way to violate best practices like
Steve Kemp wrote:
As an aside I wonder how well SE-Linux, or the other improved
security patches handle installation issues? I know that by installing
a random package you're effectively giving the package maintainer
root upon your box.
I'd imagine that a package installation
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:42:37PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
You should really ask Russell Coker on -devel. There may well be a
policy to limit postinst scripts to the things that postinst scripts
typically do.
Thanks I shall.
I was thinking was that a postinst script, or package
I am (have already) building a new package from the cvs tree, but my question
is:
Shall I run the autobuild (called bootstrap) on my system and go with the
package using those results or I shall modify my debian/rules to create the
Makefile.in and friends during compilation time?
It
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a warning about usage
restrictions but no definite
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 05:46:58PM -0500, Kevin J. Kalupson wrote:
Checking the license on some software the I would like to add.
Does this copyright meet the debian requirements. I'm thinking this package
would end up in non-free if it does qualify.
/*** Copyright Notice
On Sat, 01 Mar 2003, Agney Lopes Roth Ferraz wrote:
I'm looking for information about debian developer/maintainer.
http://nm.debian.org
I read in debian page that the only way to became maintainer is developing
some nice program, but I have two friends that are only who make the .deb
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a
On 20030301T132435+0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Is there a list of removed packages available anywhere, together with
reasons for the removal?
http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt lists removals starting some
two years ago.
F-Prot for GNU/Linux _has_ been distributed by others, e.g. by
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:22:20PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Well I fully agree with you, but let me explain: Completely by chance
I took over maintainership of the f-prot-installer package, which is
in contrib. Since an installer package may easily fail (when the
vendor changes file names,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Personally, BTW, I would really, really prefer to maintain Free
Software, not *only* for political reasons but also because a
commercial vendor is obviously the least responsive upstream you can
have. And also, not having access to the
Good evening, all. I just wanted some feedback on how I could improve my two
packages mentioned below.
-- Derek Witt, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
witty-cdplayer: I have written a CD Player that uses cdda2wav as a backend.
This was written to allow skipping CD/DVD-ROM/RW
Hi mentors,
I'm looking for information about debian developer/maintainer.
I read in debian page that the only way to became maintainer is developing some
nice program, but I have two friends that are only who make the .deb package.
The situation is: I don't have a nice package develped by me,
29 matches
Mail list logo
