Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?

2004-03-22 Thread Michael Koch
Am Montag, 22. März 2004 10:25 schrieb Number Six: Some of the scripts I include with my package use less (as well as sed, tr, and grep). I know for a fact less is not installed by default. (Not sure about this others). Should every little ordinary thing like less be included in my

Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?

2004-03-22 Thread Andreas Metzler
On 2004-03-22 Number Six [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of the scripts I include with my package use less (as well as sed, tr, and grep). I know for a fact less is not installed by default. (Not sure about this others). Should every little ordinary thing like less be included in my

Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?

2004-03-22 Thread Cosimo Alfarano
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 01:25:47AM -0800, Number Six wrote: Should every little ordinary thing like less be included in my Recommends? It's surely not germane to the package, but if it's not Why not use sensible-pager, in debianutils (Essential: yes)? cheers, c. -- To

Howto use misc:Depends? [was Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?]

2004-03-22 Thread Number Six
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 11:03:58AM +0100, Michael Koch wrote: Am Montag, 22. März 2004 10:25 schrieb Number Six: Some of the scripts I include with my package use less (as well as sed, tr, and grep). I know for a fact less is not installed by default. (Not sure about this others).

Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Number Six
I have an automake project that I've also run dh_make on. If I just run: ./configure, the default {prefix} is /usr/local, which is the way I want it. If I then run fakeroot debian/rules binary, the binary debian package will install itself to /usr/local. If I make clean; fakeroot debian/rules

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Frank Küster
Number Six [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I have an automake project that I've also run dh_make on. If I just run: ./configure, the default {prefix} is /usr/local, which is the way I want it. If I then run fakeroot debian/rules binary, the binary debian package will install itself to

Re: Howto use misc:Depends? [was Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?]

2004-03-22 Thread Colin Watson
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:37:48AM -0800, Number Six wrote: I would prefer to have less be picked up by misc:Depends, I guess, rather than explicitly adding it to the Depends line. No, you should add it explicitly; misc:Depends belongs to debhelper. However, I agree that you should refer to

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Colin Watson
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:19:55PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: - In the install target, you would call something like $(MAKE) install prefix=debian/tmp/usr It's easier to use DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp if DESTDIR support is available; that way you get less confused by /etc. - From a

Re: updating gdal library

2004-03-22 Thread Andreas Metzler
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:39:19PM +0100, Silke Reimer wrote: First I don't know how to fill the Depends for libgdal1-dev correctly. http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#AEN75 explains the following: The -dev package should depend on all -dev

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Bob Proulx
Frank Küster wrote: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: It's easier to use DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp if DESTDIR support is available; that way you get less confused by /etc. [..] Hm, how do I know (other by trial and error) whether a package supports this? autoconf'iscated ones do

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread elijah wright
frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in your email client? it corrupts the screen state in pine EVERY time i get one of your email messages... mutt doesn't get corrupted, but it shows me a big fat questionmark instead of the letter between K and s in your last

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Andreas Metzler
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: * Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote: .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain

Re: updating gdal library

2004-03-22 Thread Silke Reimer
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:49:51PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:39:19PM +0100, Silke Reimer wrote: First I don't know how to fill the Depends for libgdal1-dev correctly. http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#AEN75 explains the

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Kalle Kivimaa
elijah wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in your email client? it corrupts the screen state in pine EVERY time i get one of your email messages... mutt doesn't get corrupted, but it shows me a big fat questionmark instead

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Frank Küster
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Basically the essence of the mess is #191425. If libfoo links against libbar and application blah makes use of libfoo (but does not use libbar) libtool will link the application against both libraries. [...] O.k., understood. Now libtool gets this

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Frank Küster
elijah wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in your email client? As I see it, it is From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Although I'd prefer From: Frank =?iso-8859-1?q?K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] (that

Character encoding (was: Should I always clean...)

2004-03-22 Thread Matt Brubeck
elijah wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: alternatively, can someone suggest a solution to the screen corruption? i think what might be happening is that the letter in question is taking two cells on the screen instead of the ONE that it should take up... It sounds like Pine is sending

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Rene Engelhard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [ read http://learn.to.quote ] Hi, elijah wright wrote: frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in your email client? it corrupts the screen state in pine EVERY time i get one of your email messages... mutt doesn't

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life. .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Bernhard R. Link
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040322 21:14]: Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the case these days. I do not know, if they are used to make any programs intended for production use any more,

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Kalle Kivimaa
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I see it, it is From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, that's how I see it as well. My previous reply was based on the fact that my Gnus surprised me by showing the From-field correctly, if it is encoded, but NOT showing To, CC or

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 08:18:35PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Scott James Remnant
On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 19:49, Stephen Frost wrote: We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life. .la files shouldn't be included in anything,

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Scott James Remnant
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 21:29, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 08:18:35PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Matt Brubeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: We shouldn't be shipping or using static libraries. Why not? I know we shouldn't be linking to static libraries in our packaged software, but having the static libraries available is

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Kster wrote: [libtool brokenness] Yes, it did :-|. Could you point me to a documentation where I could read about these problems, and under what weird circumstances it will be a bug nevertheless if I

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: pkg-config is a *far* worse offender than libtool. With libtool, we have some hope of getting these things right in the near future; pkg-config, OTOH, doesn't even know there *is* a difference between static and shared

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Scott James Remnant
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 22:15, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging offense. Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of the more exotic

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked binary, copy it onto a floppy and run this after

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging offense. Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of the more exotic ports come to fruition. Debian Solaris anyone? :o) I'm not 100% sure but I

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Alexander Winston
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 20:54 +, Roger Leigh wrote: On a related note, I'd also be very happy if it was a requirement to build libraries with a miniumum of -g -ggdb -gdwarf-2, and not strip them. We could provide some mechanism to automatically strip binaries, surely? I believe that this

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: pkg-config is a *far* worse offender than libtool. With libtool, we have some hope of getting these things right in the near future; pkg-config, OTOH, doesn't even know there *is*

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If you are creating a library package, you should ship the shared library (and SONAME symlink) in the libxxxN package and the static library, name-only symlink *AND* .la file (if relevant) in the libxxx[N]-dev package. Right, on Debian shipping

Re: RFS: mimms - MMS (mms://) streaming media download utility

2004-03-22 Thread Wesley J Landaker
On Sunday 07 March 2004 9:59 pm, Wesley J Landaker wrote: Hi folks, I'm looking for a sponsor for the mimms package. This upload would close ITP bug #221806. I've gettextized mimms, so now have a new version available that has i18n support for all of it's messages. Source and binary

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Andreas Metzler
On 2004-03-22 Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: [libtool brokenness] Yes, it did :-|. Could you point me to a documentation where I could read about these problems, and under what

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Alexander Winston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 20:54 +, Roger Leigh wrote: On a related note, I'd also be very happy if it was a requirement to build libraries with a miniumum of -g -ggdb -gdwarf-2, and not strip them. We could provide some mechanism to automatically

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked binary,

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging offense. Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of the more exotic ports come to fruition. Debian

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Anibal Monsalve Salazar
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:26:39PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: * Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not 100% sure but I actually thought that's what OpenLDAP used (libltdl) and it works just fine w/o the stupid .la files. Have you actually *used* libltdl yourself? For several reasons, it's often best

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Bernhard R. Link ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040322 21:14]: Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the case these days. I do not know, if they are used to make any

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 05:26:39PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: Boot Knoppix or similar from a CD. PCs today are more often installed with CDs than floppies anyway. That's really a pretty poor reason. I cannot use a Knoppix CD to rescue

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Consider this situation: Situations can be derived for anything. :) Joe Average installs Debian which *handles* all of the dependencies. Come on, this isn't even a reason to keep them. What about users who don't run Debian, or who don't run

Re: Need a sponsor to upload #234303

2004-03-22 Thread Everton da Silva Marques
Hi Mentors, I have added minimum support for both PHP and Perl into ruli-0.19. The new Debian packages are uploaded to mentors.debian.net and are also available in the usual place: http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/ruli/ I have a signature of [EMAIL PROTECTED] on my gpg key. I suppose that is

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 08:54:17PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked binary, copy it onto a floppy

Advice on adopting a package: relay-ctrl

2004-03-22 Thread Brian T Glenn
I have submitted an ITA (Bug#238972), but the original RFA is Bug#238972. I have new packages created for relay-ctrl at the current version per the RFA. I attempted to contact the current maintainer, but i have received no response after a few days. What else should I be doing in order to

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Bob Proulx] There appear to be three cases. 1. The developer wrote the Makefiles by hand and did not supply any support for DESTDIR natively. Actually there is also: 1a. The developer wrote Makefiles by hand, but also happens to have a clue, so at some point added DESTDIR

uploaded my pim project to mentors.debian.net

2004-03-22 Thread Tom Ballard
Forum: http://mentors.debian.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=35sid=d33a77afe7960fb079f69e21927abb6f Also: http://freshmet.net/projects/pim-tb http://freshmeat.net/screenshots/45596/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/pim-tb I'm working on the 1.5 version. The package name is pim which is somewhat

Re: uploaded my pim project to mentors.debian.net

2004-03-22 Thread Anibal Monsalve Salazar
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:19:58PM -0800, Tom Ballard wrote: Forum: http://mentors.debian.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=35sid=d33a77afe7960fb079f69e21927abb6f Also: http://freshmet.net/projects/pim-tb http://freshmeat.net/screenshots/45596/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/pim-tb I'm working on the

Re: uploaded my pim project to mentors.debian.net

2004-03-22 Thread Tom Ballard
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 05:10:29PM +1100, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote: Please read [0] if you haven't done so. For one, there is no ITP record at [1]. [0] http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=wnpp Okay, did that.

Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?

2004-03-22 Thread Number Six
Some of the scripts I include with my package use less (as well as sed, tr, and grep). I know for a fact less is not installed by default. (Not sure about this others). Should every little ordinary thing like less be included in my Recommends? It's surely not germane to the package, but if

Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?

2004-03-22 Thread Michael Koch
Am Montag, 22. März 2004 10:25 schrieb Number Six: Some of the scripts I include with my package use less (as well as sed, tr, and grep). I know for a fact less is not installed by default. (Not sure about this others). Should every little ordinary thing like less be included in my

Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?

2004-03-22 Thread Kalle Kivimaa
Number Six [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Should every little ordinary thing like less be included in my Recommends? It's surely not germane to the package, but if it's not there, these little scripts will break. If your package needs something that is not Essential you must declare a Depends to

Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?

2004-03-22 Thread David Weinehall
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 01:25:47AM -0800, Number Six wrote: Some of the scripts I include with my package use less (as well as sed, tr, and grep). I know for a fact less is not installed by default. (Not sure about this others). Should every little ordinary thing like less be included in

Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?

2004-03-22 Thread Andreas Metzler
On 2004-03-22 Number Six [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of the scripts I include with my package use less (as well as sed, tr, and grep). I know for a fact less is not installed by default. (Not sure about this others). Should every little ordinary thing like less be included in my

Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?

2004-03-22 Thread Cosimo Alfarano
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 01:25:47AM -0800, Number Six wrote: Should every little ordinary thing like less be included in my Recommends? It's surely not germane to the package, but if it's not Why not use sensible-pager, in debianutils (Essential: yes)? cheers, c.

Howto use misc:Depends? [was Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?]

2004-03-22 Thread Number Six
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 11:03:58AM +0100, Michael Koch wrote: Am Montag, 22. März 2004 10:25 schrieb Number Six: Some of the scripts I include with my package use less (as well as sed, tr, and grep). I know for a fact less is not installed by default. (Not sure about this others).

Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Number Six
I have an automake project that I've also run dh_make on. If I just run: ./configure, the default {prefix} is /usr/local, which is the way I want it. If I then run fakeroot debian/rules binary, the binary debian package will install itself to /usr/local. If I make clean; fakeroot debian/rules

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote: .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken. 940 .la files on my system. Report bugs? /usr/lib/rep/... /usr/lib/libkabc_ldapkio.la /usr/lib/libesd.la /usr/lib/libkwireless.la usr/lib/gimp/1.3/modules/...

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote: .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken. 940 .la files on my system. Report bugs? [...] So either you don't mean that absolutely, or three's

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Frank Küster
Number Six [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I have an automake project that I've also run dh_make on. If I just run: ./configure, the default {prefix} is /usr/local, which is the way I want it. If I then run fakeroot debian/rules binary, the binary debian package will install itself to

Re: Howto use misc:Depends? [was Re: Should I recommend less if I use it in some scripts?]

2004-03-22 Thread Colin Watson
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:37:48AM -0800, Number Six wrote: I would prefer to have less be picked up by misc:Depends, I guess, rather than explicitly adding it to the Depends line. No, you should add it explicitly; misc:Depends belongs to debhelper. However, I agree that you should refer to

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Colin Watson
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:19:55PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: - In the install target, you would call something like $(MAKE) install prefix=debian/tmp/usr It's easier to use DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp if DESTDIR support is available; that way you get less confused by /etc. - From a

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Frank Küster
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: * Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote: .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken. 940 .la files on my system. Report bugs? [...] So

updating gdal library

2004-03-22 Thread Silke Reimer
Hallo! I am the maintainer of gdal and since a new upstream version is available I want to build a new pacakge. Now I have the following problems: First I don't know how to fill the Depends for libgdal1-dev correctly. http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#AEN75

Re: updating gdal library

2004-03-22 Thread Andreas Metzler
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:39:19PM +0100, Silke Reimer wrote: First I don't know how to fill the Depends for libgdal1-dev correctly. http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#AEN75 explains the following: The -dev package should depend on all -dev

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Frank Küster
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:19:55PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: - In the install target, you would call something like $(MAKE) install prefix=debian/tmp/usr It's easier to use DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp if DESTDIR support is available; that way

Spam mail warning notification! (Subject check wicked screen saver your account)

2004-03-22 Thread spamcontrol
eManager Notification * The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content. Source mailbox: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org Destination mailbox(es): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Policy: Subject check wicked screen saver your account Action: Quarantine

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Bob Proulx
Frank Küster wrote: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: It's easier to use DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp if DESTDIR support is available; that way you get less confused by /etc. [..] Hm, how do I know (other by trial and error) whether a package supports this? autoconf'iscated ones do

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread elijah wright
frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in your email client? it corrupts the screen state in pine EVERY time i get one of your email messages... mutt doesn't get corrupted, but it shows me a big fat questionmark instead of the letter between K and s in your last

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Andreas Metzler
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: * Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote: .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain

Re: updating gdal library

2004-03-22 Thread Silke Reimer
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:49:51PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:39:19PM +0100, Silke Reimer wrote: First I don't know how to fill the Depends for libgdal1-dev correctly. http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#AEN75 explains the

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Kalle Kivimaa
elijah wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in your email client? it corrupts the screen state in pine EVERY time i get one of your email messages... mutt doesn't get corrupted, but it shows me a big fat questionmark instead

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Frank Küster
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Basically the essence of the mess is #191425. If libfoo links against libbar and application blah makes use of libfoo (but does not use libbar) libtool will link the application against both libraries. [...] O.k., understood. Now libtool gets this

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Frank Küster
elijah wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in your email client? As I see it, it is From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Although I'd prefer From: Frank =?iso-8859-1?q?K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] (that

Character encoding (was: Should I always clean...)

2004-03-22 Thread Matt Brubeck
elijah wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: alternatively, can someone suggest a solution to the screen corruption? i think what might be happening is that the letter in question is taking two cells on the screen instead of the ONE that it should take up... It sounds like Pine is sending

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Rene Engelhard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [ read http://learn.to.quote ] Hi, elijah wright wrote: frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in your email client? it corrupts the screen state in pine EVERY time i get one of your email messages... mutt doesn't

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Andreas Metzler
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:28:43PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Personally I think the payoff is ok, due to dlopen in glibc (NSS, iconv) static linking is unreliable anyway. This I don't understand. What is the relation between dlopen calls and

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life. .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life. .la files

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Matt Brubeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: We shouldn't be shipping or using static libraries. Why not? I know we shouldn't be linking to static libraries in our packaged software, but having the static libraries available is important for some end-users and local

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Bernhard R. Link
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040322 21:14]: Pffft. Honestly, I think that claim of end-users and local administrators using static libraries is rather dated and rarely the case these days. I do not know, if they are used to make any programs intended for production use any more,

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

2004-03-22 Thread Kalle Kivimaa
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I see it, it is From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, that's how I see it as well. My previous reply was based on the fact that my Gnus surprised me by showing the From-field correctly, if it is encoded, but NOT showing To, CC or

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 08:18:35PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Scott James Remnant
On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 19:49, Stephen Frost wrote: We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life. .la files shouldn't be included in anything,

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Scott James Remnant
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 21:29, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 08:18:35PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Matt Brubeck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost wrote: We shouldn't be shipping or using static libraries. Why not? I know we shouldn't be linking to static libraries in our packaged software, but having the static libraries available is

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: [libtool brokenness] Yes, it did :-|. Could you point me to a documentation where I could read about these problems, and under what weird circumstances it will be a bug nevertheless if I

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: pkg-config is a *far* worse offender than libtool. With libtool, we have some hope of getting these things right in the near future; pkg-config, OTOH, doesn't even know there *is* a difference between static and shared

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Scott James Remnant
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 22:15, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging offense. Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of the more exotic

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked binary, copy it onto a floppy and run this after

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging offense. Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of the more exotic ports come to fruition. Debian Solaris anyone? :o) I'm not 100% sure but I

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Alexander Winston
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 20:54 +, Roger Leigh wrote: On a related note, I'd also be very happy if it was a requirement to build libraries with a miniumum of -g -ggdb -gdwarf-2, and not strip them. We could provide some mechanism to automatically strip binaries, surely? I believe that this

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: pkg-config is a *far* worse offender than libtool. With libtool, we have some hope of getting these things right in the near future; pkg-config, OTOH, doesn't even know there *is*

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Stephen Frost
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If you are creating a library package, you should ship the shared library (and SONAME symlink) in the libxxxN package and the static library, name-only symlink *AND* .la file (if relevant) in the libxxx[N]-dev package. Right, on Debian shipping

Re: RFS: mimms - MMS (mms://) streaming media download utility

2004-03-22 Thread Wesley J Landaker
On Sunday 07 March 2004 9:59 pm, Wesley J Landaker wrote: Hi folks, I'm looking for a sponsor for the mimms package. This upload would close ITP bug #221806. I've gettextized mimms, so now have a new version available that has i18n support for all of it's messages. Source and binary

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Andreas Metzler
On 2004-03-22 Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: [libtool brokenness] Yes, it did :-|. Could you point me to a documentation where I could read about these problems, and under what

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Alexander Winston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 20:54 +, Roger Leigh wrote: On a related note, I'd also be very happy if it was a requirement to build libraries with a miniumum of -g -ggdb -gdwarf-2, and not strip them. We could provide some mechanism to automatically

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Roger Leigh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I used a statically-linked binary just a few days ago. I needed to resize an NTFS partition on a newly-delivered system which came with Windows XP. In the event, I was able to get a statically linked binary,

Re: Development packages.

2004-03-22 Thread Roger Leigh
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging offense. Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of the more exotic ports come to fruition. Debian

  1   2   >