[Cc'ing Andreas Metzler as he was my last sponsor ;)]
Hi! I've repackaged gtklp to accomodate the new version 1.0d. There
are no bugfixes in this package :( but I've done some changes to
debian/rules and /control for proper handling of config.{guess,sub} files.
Below is the *signed* .changes
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:40:51PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
apt-get complains if there is more than one source of the provides
(even two sources with the same name/version). sbuild then picks the
first choice apt lists for the provides
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
Packages and source can be pulled from http://www.tzi.de/~jmm/debian/
A fixed source package with the missing build dependency on
libsdl-gfx-1.2.dev has been uploaded.
No, it has not...
Doh, it had, but into the wrong directory...
Fixed.
Cheers,
Moritz
Do you want to see real amateurs who have webcams
on their computers in their dorm rooms? This is
not one of those sites with professional girls who
get paid to do this in front of the camera, these
are the average girls next door, at college, trying
to make money and meet guys!
Get free
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:09:14AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
No you don't. You have one per entry in the sources.list. As I said
even the same version can make apt-get build-dep fail. Two versions,
like when you just uploaded a new one that a local mirror doesn't have
yet or users
also sprach Philipp Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.13.2301 +0200]:
If you see the -release bit as the API version you should name
your dev package libspf-1.0-dev. That was at least what I was
advised to do when I had the same problem some weeks ago.
Do you have a pointer to the discussion?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 14:02:03 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I see no problem with autobuilders and virtual build-dependencies since
they're supposed to be configured with just unstable repositories.
Actually, I think autobuilders also have an apt source for the incoming
directory on
On 14.06.2005, at 14:47, martin f krafft wrote:
Do you have a pointer to the discussion?
Just looking it up in the old thread Library package naming I saw
that you told me not to use -release at all when packaging a shared
library. But yes, the naming of the dev package is not explicitly
also sprach Philipp Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.14.1658 +0200]:
Just looking it up in the old thread Library package naming I saw
that you told me not to use -release at all when packaging a shared
library.
Lol. Oh, *that* thread. :)
Yeah, I maintain that -release is not good but in
I am seeking some input on the state of the following package:
Package Name: felix
Version: 1.1.0
Upstream author: John Skaller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Licence: BSD
Description: high performance programming language translator and tools
Source and amd64 binaries can be found at:
Hi,
A career imperitive here about ocaml langugae for audience of those
unfamiliar with Mathematica, Maple, Matlab. (sorry, I know, not a package
issue. But the packagers themselves are important too ;)
Mathematica is the unargued best mathematics language kernel and GUI front
end. It's also
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:01:42PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:09:14AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
No you don't. You have one per entry in the sources.list. As I said
even the same version can make apt-get build-dep fail. Two versions,
like when you
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 05:28:34AM +1000, John Skaller wrote:
I am seeking some input on the state of the following package:
Package Name: felix
Version: 1.1.0
Upstream author: John Skaller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Licence: BSD
Description: high performance programming language translator and
Hi,
A package that installs /usr/lib/libspf-1.0.so.0.0.0 should be names
libspf-1.0-0 from all I can tell. The policy does not dictate how
the -dev (and -doc) package should be named. I would prefer not to
call it libspf-dev but rather encode the version.
The library packaging guide says I
Steve Greenland wrote:
On 12-Jun-05, 02:27 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need to convince either git or GNU Interactive Tools
to change its name upstream then. Since git is the newcomer
and its name is already taken (by a GNU project no less!)
perhaps you could start there.
15 matches
Mail list logo
