Warren Turkal wrote:
I have completely reworked the packaging for the netcdf libraries into a
modern cdbs based package.
I consider cdbs as broken, rather than 'modern'.
It also fixes the bugs that are receiving this
report. I have the packages posted at [1]. Please look at them. I see
Em Sat, 18 Nov 2006 14:12:24 -0800
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
So, I took (quite) a bit of time to answer, but that's because I mostly
agree with the email.
5.) If there is a consensus on this matter, should this be
documented somewhere (policy, dev-ref) and bugs be filed
I'm quite a fan of CDBS and I'm currently writing handlers for
debian/rules to create cross-building packages for Emdebian [1]. I've
found CDBS somewhat easier to automate - mainly because hand-crafted
debian/rules files can be quite disorganised and hard to
interpret/patch. The basic task is to
Daniel,
Thanks for all your points. I've re-uploaded it and now there are no lintian
warnings also. :-)
Daniel Baumann wrote:
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
I've re-uploaded the package. Please have a look at it.
* you should not bump the revision, -1 was not uploaded to debian.
I've
* Neil Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061211 11:26]:
Yet some sponsors have made it clear that CDBS is not their preferred
method and are somewhat unwilling to sponsor CDBS.
I don't use automatic debian/control management and I personally
wouldn't recommend using that part of CDBS.
What
Hi Warren,
Warren Turkal wrote:
I have worked tonight to produce new netcdf packages for the
NetCDF libraries. They are located at [1]. I would like some feedback
on them. They are based on cdbs.
[2] is a link to a WNPP bug about this package. I would like to
adopt the package, if possible.
Neil Williams wrote:
Yet some sponsors have made it clear that CDBS is not their preferred
method and are somewhat unwilling to sponsor CDBS.
jftr: i do sponsor cdbs packages, but i can't give any tips to the
sponsoree in case there are problem whith it.
What are the problems with CDBS (apart
On 2006-12-11, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are the problems with CDBS (apart from debian/control automation)?
The biggest problem are the layers of obscurity added by cdbs and the
fact that the best docs are diving into the source.
(and the fact that there has been some cdbs
Hi,
Neil Williams wrote:
What are the problems with CDBS (apart from debian/control automation)?
my biggest problem about CDBS is the obscurity it adds to packages.
Example: You are a new-time debian developer. You want to adopt a
package that is already in Debian using cdbs. Now you have a
Hi Warren,
some further notes (as an addition to my previous written notes), as i
actually figured to get it built (pooh, was some work).
General:
In my other mail i told you that i think it is bad to use a pre-beta.
Now that i got this package to compile my impression is hardened because
while
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:38:41 +0100
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Neil Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061211 11:26]:
Yet some sponsors have made it clear that CDBS is not their preferred
method and are somewhat unwilling to sponsor CDBS.
I don't use automatic debian/control
On Monday 11 December 2006 11:25, Neil Williams wrote:
What are the problems with CDBS (apart from debian/control automation)?
Generally I am not a fan of layers of abstraction once the abstraction is
too abstract. Frameworks are great as long as they do what you expect. But
if they fail to do
Hello
I am trying to use dh_install into a debian/rules for copying a compiled file
to another compiled directory.
But the sourcedir is calculated. The dh_install (or dh_movefiles) needs a
relative directory and the string substitution generates a leading /.
Man pages and doc examples does not
On Monday 11 December 2006 12:05, schönfeld / in-medias-res.com wrote:
This is not to hypothetical though. I was in interest several month ago
to adopt a package which used CDBS and was poorly maintained. In fact i
did resign to that, because it was to obscure for me and that time i
wasn't too
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the sourcedir is calculated. The dh_install (or dh_movefiles) needs a
relative directory and the string substitution generates a leading /.
Man pages and doc examples does not have a clear solution to this.
Do you have any suggestion?
I am pretty sure the string
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:25:58 +
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the main objections to CDBS are that it hides too much, making it
hard to know what is actually going on.
How does this compare with other helper scripts like debuild and
pdebuild?
Have there been *actual* incidences
On Monday 11 December 2006 01:02, Daniel Baumann wrote:
Mashrab Kuvatov wrote:
I cannot do anything about it. It is on a Uni web-server. I should have
thought about it.
Please use mentors.debian.net then.
OK. From now on it is at:
Neil Williams wrote:
Have there been *actual* incidences when a CDBS package has failed on
the buildd's for reasons that can be clearly attributed to CDBS itself?
I have seen bugs that could have lead to FTBFS, due to the fact that people
mixed up their build-depends and build-depends-indep
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:45:59 +0100, Tobias Richter wrote
I am pretty sure the string substitution does not generate the
leading slash. What is the value of $DESTDIR ? I guess if you set
this to a relative path, it'll work out.
Bye,
tobias
Hello,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Currently,
Hi,
On 12/11/06, andremachado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, it have to be an absolute path...
The dh_install man-page [1] seems to indicate that the paths given to
dh_install have to be relative:
The name of the files (or directories) to install should be given relative to
the
current
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:18:30 +0100
François Févotte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless I misunderstood your problem, you could for exemple try something like:
# Relative path
BUILDDIR=debian/php-java-bridge
# Absolute path
DESTDIR = ${CURDIR}/${BUILDDIR}
# ./configure requires the absolute
Hi all,
not sure using the proper place (I first posted into
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and also in testing w/o any
success in getting answers or help), but let's have try here.
I have an old HP Omnibook 900 and I'm compiling an optimized Linux
image for it under Etch Debian.
When using
On Monday 11 December 2006 03:42, Patrick Schönfeld wrote:
* Remove all files from debian/ with .ex ending. They are example files
and if you don't need them, then you should not include them. If you
need them, then rename and edit them and whatever it needs to do further.
I was evaluating the
On Monday 11 December 2006 05:34, schönfeld / in-medias-res.com wrote:
General:
In my other mail i told you that i think it is bad to use a pre-beta.
Now that i got this package to compile my impression is hardened because
while compiling there do occur about several hundred of warnings. Okay,
Hello,
Many thanks for your suggestion, François.
It works very well.
You could see the result debian/dirs and debian/rules clean files at
http://php-java-bridge.cvs.sourceforge.net/php-java-bridge/php-java-bridge/debian/
Regards.
Andre Felipe Machado
http://www.techforce.com.br
--
To
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So the main objections to CDBS are that it hides too much, making it
hard to know what is actually going on.
How does this compare with other helper scripts like debuild and
pdebuild?
Those aren't used as part of the package build process; they're
Thibaut Paumard wrote:
I believe the Right Thing (TM) to do is
./configure --prefix=/usr
make
DESTDIR=$(DESTDIR) make install
I'd say it is
make DESTDIR=$(DESTIR) install
--
Felipe Sateler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Warren Turkal wrote:
Version of your package results in a lintian warning, because your
version string is not like it should be in Debian. Your version should
be foo-x.x.x (another .x is for NMUs).
I want the package to be sorted before a real -1 release in the debian
archive so that folks
On Monday 11 December 2006 12:35, Felipe Sateler wrote:
You can use the ~ suffix, as in 3.6.2-beta4~pre1. These versions will
evaluate lower than 3.6.2-beta4.
Thanks for the info. I am guessing that I would version it like
3.6.2-beta4~pre1-1 then?
wt
--
Warren Turkal, Research Associate
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Daniel,
Thanks for all your points. I've re-uploaded it and now there are no lintian
warnings also. :-)
Everything well, except the following two regressions:
* changelog has got an empty line at the end again
* you removed $(MAKE) from build, i recommend you
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 10:58:27AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does this compare with other helper scripts like debuild and
pdebuild?
Those aren't used as part of the package build process; they're wrappers
around it that one doesn't have to use
Warren Turkal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, the build deps now look like:
Build-Depends: cdbs, debhelper (= 5), autotools-dev, gfortran, tex, texi2dvi
Ugh, what's this 'tex' package?
Before blindly doing what others tell you, you'd better think a little
bit (I'm sure Patrick didn't want to
On Monday 11 December 2006 14:33, Florent Rougon wrote:
Warren Turkal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, the build deps now look like:
Build-Depends: cdbs, debhelper (= 5), autotools-dev, gfortran, tex,
texi2dvi
Ugh, what's this 'tex' package?
Well, I haven't posted the new version of the
On (09/12/06 19:23), Luca Bedogni wrote:
Is there a way to know all the bugs affecting packages installed on a
machine?
Something similar to wnpp-alert, but catching all the bugs insted of O, RFP
or similar.
Not entirely what you want, but there is rc-alert, also from devscripts.
As you
On Monday 11 December 2006 15:33, Warren Turkal wrote:
It is running through debuild-pbuilder right now.
New version (3.6.2-beta4~pre1) at [1]. This version sorts before the last one
so you will have to manually remove the prior packages I posted if you used
apt* to install them.
Here's the
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:58:27 -0800
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So the main objections to CDBS are that it hides too much, making it
hard to know what is actually going on.
How does this compare with other helper scripts like debuild and
Once you make these changes, repost your sponsor request.
I have made all the changes you mentioned in your two previous
emails. New files are at
http://www.aei.mpg.de/~peekas/debian/
There's only one warning left when running lintian on the package:
W: lie:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 12:32:06AM +0100, Kasper Peeters wrote:
Once you make these changes, repost your sponsor request.
I have made all the changes you mentioned in your two previous
emails. New files are at
http://www.aei.mpg.de/~peekas/debian/
Please post the complete URL to your
Dear mentors,
Please can I have comments about my packaging of gprsec, which I
intend to package.
* Package name: gprsec
Version : 3.0.0-1
Upstream Author : Piter Simon
* URL : http://www.gprsec.hu/
* License : GPL2
Section : net
It builds these
39 matches
Mail list logo
