ITA wmakerconf, wmakerconf-data (will need a sponsor)

2003-05-23 Thread Kevin B. McCarty
retitle 182934 ITA: wmakerconf -- GTK+ based configuration tool for Window Maker retitle 182935 ITA: wmakerconf-data -- Datafile for wmakerconf, a configuration tool for Window Maker thanks Hi all, I am adopting wmakerconf and wmakerconf-data packages -- I've already debianized the newest

Re: debian/rules and wrong run-time library

2003-05-23 Thread moseley
Andreas, First, let me say thank you for spending time on both answering my newbie questions, and for taking the time to download and test out the package. You have been a huge help. On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 07:33:52PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: http://swish-e.org - Download and get

subscribe

2003-05-23 Thread Torsten Landschoff
subscribe

how to handle updated .gmo translation file?

2003-05-23 Thread Kevin B. McCarty
Hi all, I have a bit of a problem applying the updated Danish .po file from bug # 170562. Once I copy the new da.po file into the po/ directory and run fakeroot debian/rules binary, a new da.gmo file is created, but it is not deleted by fakeroot debian/rules clean. Then, of course, running

Re: how to handle updated .gmo translation file?

2003-05-23 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 09:34:17AM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: I have a bit of a problem applying the updated Danish .po file from bug # 170562. Once I copy the new da.po file into the po/ directory and run fakeroot debian/rules binary, a new da.gmo file is created, but it is not deleted

Re: how to handle updated .gmo translation file?

2003-05-23 Thread Andreas Metzler
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 09:34:17AM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: I have a bit of a problem applying the updated Danish .po file from bug # 170562. Once I copy the new da.po file into the po/ directory and run fakeroot debian/rules binary, a new da.gmo file is created, but it is not

Re: How do you upload/build sponsored packages?

2003-05-23 Thread Bob Proulx
Colin Watson wrote: I actually don't see how dpkg-buildpackage's sign-immediately-after-build defaults ever make sense (except when dpkg-buildpackage was originally written, when debsign didn't yet exist). Why would you want to waste time signing a package you haven't tested yet? Surely the

New packager - libnjb

2003-05-23 Thread Joel Konkle-Parker
I'm not currently a Debian developer, just a user, and I've never packaged anything before. I'm interested in packaging libnjb http://libnjb.sf.net (and ultimately Gnomad http://gnomad2.sf.net). The New Maintainers' Guide is aimed at program packaging, not library packaging.Can anyone give me

Request for sponsor: vtun

2003-05-23 Thread Morgon Kanter
I'm the new maintainer of vtun, after it was orphaned. I have finished packaging the new vtun (2.6), which includes a number of new goodies and bug fixes. Available from: http://www.surgo.net/deb/vtun_2.6.orig.tar.gz http://www.surgo.net/deb/vtun_2.6-1.diff.gz

Re: libexecdir - helper scripts

2003-05-23 Thread Roger Leigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 07:41:33PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: There's an easier way. In your Makefile.am, just do this: pkglibexecdir = $(libexecdir)/$(PACKAGE) and then pkglibexec_PROGRAMS = foo foo_SOURCES = foo.c foo.h bar.c bar.h I