On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:41:03PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Andrei Mitrofanow wrote:
nobody interestet to fvwm-themes?
http://smilebef.homelinux.org/~smilebef/
[Reading my note before sending it I see it sounds harsh. I don't
mean it that way. I mean it constructively so that you will
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:45:40AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
questions about them). In the case of an upload queue, you may have to
upload a .commands file to delete the extra files; there's documentation
of this somewhere ...
Or just sit there and watch the mails until they stop - the
Quoting Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2003-09-09 00:50:24 BST):
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:22:02PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
I recently read about target-specific variables in make, so I thought I could
do this:
pkg1-stamp: pkg1
pkg2-stamp: pkg2
%-stamp: $(@:%-stamp=%)
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:45:37PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 05:37:40AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Adam Kessel wrote:
I've written a fairly simple command-line shuffle music file player.
Despite its
El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2003, a las 17:54, Matthew Palmer escribe:
I'd appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
While reading the FAQ I find:
3. Put a package together, built against a current version of sid.
Is it in some way mandatory using sid as the developing and
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
Is it in some way mandatory using sid as the developing and
packaging environment?
I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance of
getting
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
Is it in some way mandatory using sid as the developing and
packaging environment?
I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
packages against stable
* Santiago Vila ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 14:20]:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
anywhere [...]
Whether this means you need a sid
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:25:03AM +0200, Frank K??ster wrote:
But what I think is a bug is that the package creates its own
subdirectory in /etc, but doesn't use it. However, I should have a
closer look at the policy before bothering the BTS
It does use it. I believe there is also a
Hi,
I'm the lead maintainer of the Perl Oak Component Tree and the Forest
Web Application Builder (http://perl-oak.sourceforge.net) and I've
packaged the entire library and the application, now I need a sponsor
for them, they're available at
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 13:05, Andreas Barth escribe:
Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
Packages must be uploaded to sid. So, they normally are built on sid.
This makes more sense to me.
I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:10, Santiago Vila escribe:
They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
anywhere that they are actually built under sid. What is really
mandatory is that uploaded packages have the dependencies and
build-dependencies which
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable version of a library, choosing the stable version would
not make the path of
It seems to me that randomplay does everything you're requesting (below).
If it's something people are looking for, doesn't it make it potentially
a good candidate for Debian?
Incidentally, my package shorlfilter recently entered unstable. The
main script is only about 100 lines, yet it seems to
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of them seem to have
been packaged using woody, some of them seem to have been packaged
using sid. For those in the first group, a simple apt-get build-dep
satisfies build
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable version of a
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable version of a library,
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable
Hi there,
A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the
upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian
without heavy modification of the upstream version. I'm not going to say
exactly what the problem is here, but it definitely doesn't
My immediate question:
I need to build a dual binary (a runtime and a development)
package from a single source package, called wcstools,
which I am creating with dh_make and dpkg-buildpackage.
I've seen various references to how these should be built
in debian/wcstools and debian/wcstools-dev
* Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 21:56]:
I've seen various references to how these should be built
in debian/wcstools and debian/wcstools-dev instead of
just in debian/tmp -- but I *haven't* found out how to
make that happen. Is there something else I should be
If you use
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:36:45PM +0200, Bruno Rodrigues wrote:
I need a sponsor to update two packages and close some bugs:
mantis (0.17.5-7+1) unstable; urgency=low
[...]
php4-imagick (0.9.7-0+2) unstable; urgency=low
I'm looking at these now.
--
Colin Watson
Ismael Valladolid Torres dijo [Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:54:18PM +0200]:
Is it in some way mandatory using sid as the developing and
packaging environment?
I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Lightsey wrote:
Hi there,
A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the
upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian
without heavy modification of the upstream version.
Please file
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 02:34 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
My immediate question:
Um, I'm reading the debhelper man page -- is it possible
that this is as simple as using the m option on dh_make
and then naming all the control files wcstools.rules,
wcstools-dev.rules, etc (i.e. foo -
On Sep 9, Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
My immediate question:
I need to build a dual binary (a runtime and a development)
package from a single source package, called wcstools,
which I am creating with dh_make and dpkg-buildpackage.
I've seen various references to how
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:36:45PM +0200, Bruno Rodrigues wrote:
I need a sponsor to update two packages and close some bugs:
mantis (0.17.5-7+1) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Only reconfigure if config.php doesn't exists, avoiding overwriting
* it
(Closes: #199985)
*
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:20:26PM -0500, John Lightsey wrote:
A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the
upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian
without heavy modification of the upstream version. I'm not going to say
exactly
Andrei Mitrofanow wrote:
nobody interestet to fvwm-themes?
http://smilebef.homelinux.org/~smilebef/
[Reading my note before sending it I see it sounds harsh. I don't
mean it that way. I mean it constructively so that you will know why
I personally have not tried any of your packages. Please
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:41:03PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Andrei Mitrofanow wrote:
nobody interestet to fvwm-themes?
http://smilebef.homelinux.org/~smilebef/
[Reading my note before sending it I see it sounds harsh. I don't
mean it that way. I mean it constructively so that you will
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:45:40AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
questions about them). In the case of an upload queue, you may have to
upload a .commands file to delete the extra files; there's documentation
of this somewhere ...
Or just sit there and watch the mails until they stop - the
Quoting Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2003-09-09 00:50:24 BST):
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:22:02PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
I recently read about target-specific variables in make, so I thought I
could
do this:
pkg1-stamp: pkg1
pkg2-stamp: pkg2
%-stamp: $(@:%-stamp=%)
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:45:37PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 05:37:40AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Adam Kessel wrote:
I've written a fairly simple command-line shuffle music file player.
Despite its
El jueves, 4 de septiembre de 2003, a las 17:54, Matthew Palmer escribe:
I'd appreciate comments and more questions and answers.
While reading the FAQ I find:
3. Put a package together, built against a current version of sid.
Is it in some way mandatory using sid as the developing and
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 12:58]:
Is it in some way mandatory using sid as the developing and
packaging environment?
I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance of
getting
* Santiago Vila ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 14:20]:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
anywhere [...]
Whether this means you need a sid
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:25:03AM +0200, Frank K??ster wrote:
But what I think is a bug is that the package creates its own
subdirectory in /etc, but doesn't use it. However, I should have a
closer look at the policy before bothering the BTS
It does use it. I believe there is also a
Hi,
I'm the lead maintainer of the Perl Oak Component Tree and the Forest
Web Application Builder (http://perl-oak.sourceforge.net) and I've
packaged the entire library and the application, now I need a sponsor
for them, they're available at
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 13:05, Andreas Barth escribe:
Normally packages are uploaded to sid. So, they must be build on sid.
Packages must be uploaded to sid. So, they normally are built on sid.
This makes more sense to me.
I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:10, Santiago Vila escribe:
They should be buildable under sid, yes, but there is no requirement
anywhere that they are actually built under sid. What is really
mandatory is that uploaded packages have the dependencies and
build-dependencies which
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable version of a library, choosing the stable version would
not make the path of
It seems to me that randomplay does everything you're requesting (below).
If it's something people are looking for, doesn't it make it potentially
a good candidate for Debian?
Incidentally, my package shorlfilter recently entered unstable. The
main script is only about 100 lines, yet it seems to
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
I usually backport packages from unstable. Some of them seem to have
been packaged using woody, some of them seem to have been packaged
using sid. For those in the first group, a simple apt-get build-dep
satisfies build
* Ismael Valladolid Torres ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 18:35]:
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable version of a
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable version of a library,
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:33:01PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
El martes, 9 de septiembre de 2003, a las 14:27, Andreas Barth escribe:
With a sid build environment you're always on the safe side.
What about, having the choice of building against both the stable and
the unstable
Hi there,
A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the
upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian
without heavy modification of the upstream version. I'm not going to say
exactly what the problem is here, but it definitely doesn't
My immediate question:
I need to build a dual binary (a runtime and a development)
package from a single source package, called wcstools,
which I am creating with dh_make and dpkg-buildpackage.
I've seen various references to how these should be built
in debian/wcstools and debian/wcstools-dev
* Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 21:56]:
I've seen various references to how these should be built
in debian/wcstools and debian/wcstools-dev instead of
just in debian/tmp -- but I *haven't* found out how to
make that happen. Is there something else I should be
If you use
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:36:45PM +0200, Bruno Rodrigues wrote:
I need a sponsor to update two packages and close some bugs:
mantis (0.17.5-7+1) unstable; urgency=low
[...]
php4-imagick (0.9.7-0+2) unstable; urgency=low
I'm looking at these now.
--
Colin Watson
Ismael Valladolid Torres dijo [Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:54:18PM +0200]:
Is it in some way mandatory using sid as the developing and
packaging environment?
I usually have stable installed, and even have built some simple
packages against stable dependencies. Wouldn't they have a chance of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Lightsey wrote:
Hi there,
A while back I ITA'd the rocks-n-diamonds package. After talking with the
upstream maintainer I realized this package can't be included in Debian
without heavy modification of the upstream version.
Please file
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 02:34 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
My immediate question:
Um, I'm reading the debhelper man page -- is it possible
that this is as simple as using the m option on dh_make
and then naming all the control files wcstools.rules,
wcstools-dev.rules, etc (i.e. foo -
On Sep 9, Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
My immediate question:
I need to build a dual binary (a runtime and a development)
package from a single source package, called wcstools,
which I am creating with dh_make and dpkg-buildpackage.
I've seen various references to how
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:36:45PM +0200, Bruno Rodrigues wrote:
I need a sponsor to update two packages and close some bugs:
mantis (0.17.5-7+1) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Only reconfigure if config.php doesn't exists, avoiding overwriting
* it
(Closes: #199985)
*
57 matches
Mail list logo
