Dne Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:00:46 +0100
Salvatore Bonaccorso [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
Hi
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 10:29:15PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Michal Čihař wrote:
Dne Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:25:47 +0100
Salvatore Bonaccorso [EMAIL
Hi
Dne Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:29:15 +0100
Salvatore Bonaccorso [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
Yes I have to rephrase these sentences. The reason about that is the
following: upstream ships the base filemanager tuxcmd in a source
tarball, and in another tarball some modules (the above claimed, and I
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:37:44PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
Uploaded.
Thanks!
In the next upload, please remove the duplicate space in the last
paragraph of the description.
Will do.
Why was your orig.tar.gz not the same as upstream's? Please always use
the upstream tarball unless it has
Hi,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Neil Williams[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This component is a shared library and therefore a build dependency.
If you are going to force a particular version, you should do it in
Build-Depends.
dpkg-shlibdeps will then work out the rest using any
Andy Hawkins wrote:
Hi all,
I'm in the process of building my first package. Most of the dependencies
generated by ${shlibs:Depends} are fine for the package, but I need to force
the version of one particular component.
So I've put
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends},
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please file a bug about this.
I forgot to ask you to ask the release team for binNMUs for the
packages using those symbols once the shlibs is fixed.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uploaded to
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.21-2.dsc
Uploaded.
In the next upload, please remove the duplicate space in the last
paragraph of the description.
Why was your orig.tar.gz not
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:58:29 + (UTC)
Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to force the version of one particular component.
Why is that?
Because that version of FLAC includes extra functionality that is
detected at compile time.
Then it is a build-dependency issue - ensure
Hi,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Neil Williams[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dpkg-shlibdeps appears to disagree - either the symbols in FLAC are
wrong or your suspicion could be wrong. Are you talking about new
symbols in the FLAC library or bug fixes in existing functions?
New symbols.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:02:25 + (UTC)
Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm in the process of building my first package. Most of the
dependencies generated by ${shlibs:Depends} are fine for the package,
but I need to force the version of one particular component.
This component is a
Eugene V. Lyubimkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (09/12/2008):
package-has-a-duplicate-relation depends: libflac++6, libflac++6 (= 1.2.1)
According to the man dpkg-gencontrol, just place 'libflac++6(=1.2.1)'
before the '${shlibs:Depends}', and dpkg-control with throw away less
strong dependency.
Wrong
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
New symbols. It specifically has support for embedding images into the FLAC
file. This was introduced in 1.2.
Looks like you just found an RC bug in libflac++6 - includes new
symbols in version 1.2.1-1 according to mole but
Hi,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Wise[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to force the version of one particular component.
Why is that?
Because that version of FLAC includes extra functionality that is
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to force the version of one particular component.
Why is that?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Hi all,
I'm in the process of building my first package. Most of the dependencies
generated by ${shlibs:Depends} are fine for the package, but I need to force
the version of one particular component.
So I've put
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, libflac++6(=1.2.1)
in the 'control'
Dear mentors,
I am seeking a sponsor for my updated package replaceit (George Danchev
kindly sponsored previously). This upload:
* fixes bug 506767, and also
* migrated into a git repository with public access
* makes proper use of debhelper 7.
Even if you're unable to sponsor, a review would
Hi,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Wise[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
New symbols. It specifically has support for embedding images into the FLAC
file. This was introduced in 1.2.
Looks like you just found an RC
Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] (09/12/2008):
Please file a bug about this.
Umm, I'll try. I'm not sure exactly what that bug report should say!
Kind of new to all this Debian packaging stuff (as of this time last
week I knew nothing about it!).
Short version: “Fix your shlibs.”
Slightly
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:51:50 +0100
Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] (09/12/2008):
Please file a bug about this.
Umm, I'll try. I'm not sure exactly what that bug report should say!
Kind of new to all this Debian packaging stuff (as of this time
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cyril, we've had this discussion before - merely adding symbols does
NOT require a SONAME bump.
We are not talking about SONAME bumps, but shlib bumps.
Take a look at glib2.0, libgtk+2.0 and libqof1 - symbols are added
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:18:01 +0900
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
New symbols. It specifically has support for embedding images into
the FLAC file. This was introduced in 1.2.
Looks like you just found an RC bug
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] (09/12/2008):
Short version: “Fix your shlibs.”
Cyril, we've had this discussion before - merely adding symbols does
NOT require a SONAME bump.
Neil, read.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] (09/12/2008):
Looks like you just found an RC bug in libflac++6 - includes new
symbols in version 1.2.1-1 according to mole but the shlibs does not
depend on that version:
That is not a bug - the package building against it merely has to
require that
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:06:46 +
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bug only arises if symbols are removed or function prototypes are
changed in existing symbols.
http://qa.debian.org/cgi-bin/mole/seedsymbols/.raw/seedsymbols/libflac++6_i386
Then a new line gets added for a
On 2008-12-09, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt that - merely adding a new symbol is NOT a bug, let alone
release-critical.
Right, but not bumping shlibs at the same time is an RC bug AFAIK.
I agree.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cyril, we need to sort this out for that RC bug that doesn't exist but
which you raised the severity - adding a new symbol is NOT a bug, as
long as it is done properly (as above).
It is up to the package using the library
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] (09/12/2008):
Adding a new function (or several hundred new functions) has
absolutely ZERO impact on the SONAME as long as the new functions do
not overlap existing functions, change existing functions or require
any changes elsewhere in the library that remove
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] (10/12/2008):
Specify the strict version ahead of shlib:Depends and dpkg-shlibdeps
does the right thing.
Thats a hack. Another workaround for broken shlibs is
debian/shlibs.local.
A very dirty one. The other being the one recommended by the Policy, but
I don't
On Tuesday 09 December 2008 17:27:28 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am seeking a sponsor for my updated package replaceit (George Danchev
kindly sponsored previously). This upload:
* fixes bug 506767, and also
* migrated into a git repository with public access
* makes proper
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:06:16 +0900
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Cyril, we've had this discussion before - merely adding symbols does
NOT require a SONAME bump.
We are not talking about SONAME bumps, but shlib
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 04:06:46PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:18:01 +0900
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
New symbols. It specifically has support for embedding images into
the FLAC
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package airoscript.
* Package name: airoscript
Version : 2.0.11-1
Upstream Author : Daouid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://airoscript.aircrack-ng.org
* License : gpl
Section : net
It builds these
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, if the package that is building needs those symbols. But what about
other packages that *don't* necessarily need those symbols, but get built
against the newer version of the library anyway? Those symbols can end
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 06:33:24PM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
Uploaded
Thanks, that was quick!
One minor thing I'm not too concerned about is that diff.gz directly patches
the Makefile [1]. In fact the change is so innocent that using a patch system
could be considered an overkill, but
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:14:05 +0100
Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bug only arises if symbols are removed or function prototypes
are changed in existing symbols.
Wrong.
You're talking about the shlib, as explained in my other message, I was
inadvertently folding the two into
Hi,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Andy Hawkins[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm, I'll try. I'm not sure exactly what that bug report should say! Kind of
new to all this Debian packaging stuff (as of this time last week I knew
nothing about it!).
Now I'm confused. Is there a bug in the
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:34:15 + (UTC)
Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I'm confused.
That's my fault. There is a bug in the shlibs of libflac++
Is there a bug in the libflac++ stuff or not? The
way I see it:
Yes - just in the shlibs which is much easier to fix.
1. If my
Hi,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Neil Williams[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone confirm / deny my understanding here? As I say, I'm very
new to all this.
Sorry to inflict my mistake upon you. It happens to everyone at some
point.
Whoops. It appears the mistake is mine.
Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] (09/12/2008):
My .deb however doesn't depend on a specific version of libflac, is
that because there are no versions prior to this available?
It is because currently, libflac doesn't declare its shlibs properly.
Once this is fixed, and once your package has been
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:12:56 + (UTC)
Andy Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone confirm / deny my understanding here? As I say, I'm
very new to all this.
Sorry to inflict my mistake upon you. It happens to everyone at some
point.
Whoops. It appears the mistake is mine.
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] (09/12/2008):
You're talking about the shlib, as explained in my other message, I
was inadvertently folding the two into one. My mistake.
Finally.
You *do* understand the concept of SONAME and shlibs, right?
Yes, but adding symbols properly includes the
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:17:02 +0100
Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] (09/12/2008):
*shrug*. Knowing the Debian Policy would help compensate that bias.
I think you've missed my point - the change is done anyway, it's just
done as part of an upstream
Hi
I yust reuploaded package whith improvements done:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Michal Čihař wrote:
Dne Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:25:47 +0100
Salvatore Bonaccorso [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL:
Hi
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 10:14:48AM +0100, Michal Čihař wrote:
Dne Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:29:15 +0100
Salvatore Bonaccorso [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
Yes I have to rephrase these sentences. The reason about that is the
following: upstream ships the base filemanager tuxcmd in a source
Hi
Dne Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:16:31 +0100
Salvatore Bonaccorso [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
I followed that, but have still some unsure points abaout that.
Example:
Files: *
Copyright: Copyright 2008, Tomáš Bžatek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
License: GPL-2+
On Debian systems the full text of the GNU
Dear mentors,
I am seeking a sponsor for my updated package webcpp (Sandro Tosi kindly
sponsored previously).
This upload adds the VCS-* fields to debian/control and fixes some
minor lintian warnings. The dsc is at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/webcpp/webcpp_0.8.4-8.dsc
If
Jonathan Wiltshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] (09/12/2008):
This upload adds the VCS-* fields to debian/control and fixes some
minor lintian warnings.
Hi,
thanks for your attention to details. That doesn't really look like
needing an upload right now, though. I'd wait for a bugfix or a new
upstream
also sprach George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.12.09.1733 +0100]:
c) use topgit as your patch queue manager, see:
/usr/share/doc/topgit/HOWTO-tg2quilt.gz; or
I think TopGit is awesome.
Yet, I think TopGit might not be ready for everyone just yet. It
still requires a very solid
48 matches
Mail list logo
