On 12/10/08, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, David Francos (XayOn) wrote:
It has also experimental support for wlandecrypter and support for
mdk3, they are not dependences, since the program will still work
without them, but suggests (They add optional
Resul Cetin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (11/12/2008):
I want that debcheckout will checkout debian instead of master.
Tweak HEAD in the repository to point to the wanted branch (yeah, that
shouldn't even exist in a bare repository, etc., but that does exactly
what you need, so… enjoy).
Mraw,
KiBi.
Sry, but it is not possible to move head because otherwise upstream will kill
me. (It is a shared repository with upstream)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/VCS-Git-branch-tp20947309p20952843.html
Sent from the debian-mentors mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
To
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:26:55 +0900
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 07:26:34PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. a
écrit :
On Wednesday 2008 December 10 17:07:06 Julien Lavergne wrote:
- Since unstable is frozen for Lenny, I want to let the
possibility to upload
Hello Ryan,
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 07:46, Ryan Niebur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- debian/dirs is probably not needed, look if you can remove
cannot be fixed, upstream's Makefile is silly.
ok :)
- can't you use dh_installman to install manpage instead of do it by hand?
does it make much of
Resul Cetin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (11/12/2008):
Sry, but it is not possible to move head because otherwise upstream
will kill me. (It is a shared repository with upstream)
Just had a quick look at debcheckout's code, it looks like you would
need to open a bug against it so that you can specify the
Cyril Brulebois-4 wrote:
Resul Cetin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (11/12/2008):
Sry, but it is not possible to move head because otherwise upstream
will kill me. (It is a shared repository with upstream)
Just had a quick look at debcheckout's code, it looks like you would
need to open a bug
Hi,
how can I specify the branch in debian/control VCS-Git? The upstream branch
is
master and the debian branch has the name debian.
I want that debcheckout will checkout debian instead of master.
Not sure if debcheckout handles this correctly, but git's syntax for
cloning a specific
Resul Cetin wrote:
Cyril Brulebois-4 wrote:
Just had a quick look at debcheckout's code, it looks like you would
need to open a bug against it so that you can specify the appropriate
branch somewhere in the Vcs-Git URL. I think it's already going this way
for topgit, but I didn't
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, David Francos (XayOn) wrote:
That's the thing, wlandecrypter and mdk3 are not in debian, nowhere.
But I tought if some package uses software no packaged for debian,
goes to contrib (I read that).
That's only for Recommends: and Depends:; see Policy 2.2.1.
Ok, so if that
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:08:32AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Unstable has had to be all-but-closed as a technical step to solve a
social problem. Uploads should not be targeted at unstable simply
I was not aware of this, where can I find more info about it?
--
Jonathan Wiltshire
On Thursday 11 December 2008 11:31:19 you wrote:
Hi,
how can I specify the branch in debian/control VCS-Git? The upstream
branch is master and the debian branch has the name debian.
I want that debcheckout will checkout debian instead of master.
Not sure if debcheckout handles this
Hello Neil,
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:08, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unstable is also closed so that other packages can migrate more
easily. Uploads not related to Lenny should go into experimental. New
can you point to ufficial documentation stating this? (ok, it's a
joke, I know
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:18:21 +
Jonathan Wiltshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:08:32AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Unstable has had to be all-but-closed as a technical step to solve a
social problem. Uploads should not be targeted at unstable simply
I was not
Resul Cetin wrote:
The bug can be tracked at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=508433
It was marked as wontfix
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/VCS-Git-branch-tp20947309p20955942.html
Sent from the debian-mentors mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.2.6-1
of my package gtklp.
It builds these binary packages:
gtklp - printing tool for CUPS on the GNOME Desktop
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL:
Hi
Dne Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:09:02 +0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zak B. Elep) napsal(a):
The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gtklp
- Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main
contrib non-free
- dget
Am Donnerstag, den 11.12.2008, 13:09 + schrieb Neil Williams:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:43:03 +0100
Sandro Tosi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would make things easier to release Lenny if all (or very
nearly all) activities in unstable that were unrelated to the release
*were* actually stopped.
Hi all,
I think I'm about done with the packaging of my flactag utility. Initially
I'd like someone who knows about these things to take a look over the
package to make sure there's nothing I've done wrong, or missed that I
should have done.
Just for information, I plan on offering a .deb that's
Thomas Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] (11/12/2008):
Am Donnerstag, den 11.12.2008, 13:09 + schrieb Neil Williams:
Everyone has to take account of transitions and blocks in unstable
between releases, the release freeze itself is just another issue to
consider with regard to unstable. Unstable
Michael Čihař writes:
What is reason for changes in configure.in? I simply do no see reason
for removing these parts.
I removed these primarily to remove a `silent' dependency on gtk+1.2
when rebuilding the autotools (needing gtk+1.2 macros when this package
is primarily built against gtk+2.0).
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.12-2
of my package dbacl.
It builds these binary packages:
dbacl - digramic Bayesian text classifier
The package appears to be lintian clean.
The upload would fix these bugs: 489560
The package can be found on
On Thursday 2008 December 11 04:21:42 Resul Cetin wrote:
Sry, but it is not possible to move head because otherwise upstream will
kill me. (It is a shared repository with upstream)
Well, while it may not be the best solution, you could get around that issue
by not sharing the repository. At
Le Thursday 11 December 2008 16:33:59 Andy Hawkins, vous avez écrit :
The package isn't ready to be uploaded to Debian 'proper' as I want to
release a new version of the software *and* the Debian packages together.
As such, I need to be a bit careful about it getting out 'into the wild' as
it
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:25:13 +0100
Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 11.12.2008, 13:09 + schrieb Neil Williams:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:43:03 +0100
Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote:
It would make things easier to release Lenny if all (or very
nearly
Well, I didn't thought this request will turn into this type of
discussion.
Anyway, just to add my point of view : I mostly agree with Neil
position, as most of uploads should go to experimental during the
freeze.
But, for this particular upload (and maybe some others), targeting
unstable is IMO
Hi,
In article 200812111821.06249.to...@rastageeks.org,
Romain Beauxisto...@rastageeks.org wrote:
Please, make sure to seperate the debian packaging files from your released
software. There can be several debian package for a single upstream release,
so debian-related things
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:04:37 + (UTC)
Andy Hawkins a...@gently.org.uk wrote:
Please, make sure to seperate the debian packaging files from your
released software. There can be several debian package for a single
upstream release, so debian-related things should always be out of
the
Andy Hawkins a...@gently.org.uk (11/12/2008):
I'm not sure I understand why the debian directory shouldn't be part
of my 'main' release? What problems does this cause?
Hello, see [1] for some reasons. Have a nice reading.
1.
Hi,
In article 20081211211444.b3526312.codeh...@debian.org,
Neil Williamscodeh...@debian.org wrote:
Upstream is not Debian - the two should not mix, even if your are the
Debian maintainer. The debian/ directory will have to be changed
between upstream releases and must not be
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org (11/12/2008):
Packages created by the upstream team are generally exceptionally poor
quality. Even if the upstream team is or includes the Debian
maintainer, there is no justification for having a .deb on the
upstream download page - leave it to the packagers.
Hello Zak
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 16:59, Zak B. Elep zak...@zakame.net wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.12-2
of my package dbacl.
It builds these binary packages:
dbacl - digramic Bayesian text classifier
The package appears to be lintian clean.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 09:23:53PM +, Andy Hawkins wrote:
I'll look at getting it packaged up tomorrow and uploaded to 'mentors'. Is
the request for sponsorship automatic? Or is there an 'approved' format?
You need to file an Intent to Package [1] if you haven't already. Then
when you
news n...@ger.gmane.org wrote on 12/11/2008 04:04:37 PM:
Hi,
In article 200812111821.06249.to...@rastageeks.org,
Romain Beauxisto...@rastageeks.org wrote:
Please, make sure to seperate the debian packaging files from
yourreleased
software. There can be several debian package
It is simply unacceptable to have the debian/ directory in the upstream
source.
So how to complain about packages that don't want to change the policy?
I filed a bug at upstream [1] but it was a wontfix.
Also other literature about why not to ship debian/ [2].
Paul
[1]
Hi,
In article 20081211213923.gd6...@powdarrmonkey.net,
Jonathan Wiltshiredeb...@jwiltshire.org.uk wrote:
You need to file an Intent to Package [1] if you haven't already.
Yep, I've done that.
Then when you upload to mentors.d.n, you have the opportunity to log in
and get a
Andy Hawkins wrote:
I'll look at getting it packaged up tomorrow and uploaded to 'mentors'. Is
the request for sponsorship automatic? Or is there an 'approved' format?
No, you'll have to post a request here on the list. I believe the site
provides a template (that unfortunatelly does not
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Jonathan Wiltshire deb...@jwiltshire.org.uk (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
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 04:39:04PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
The only reason why I would recommend to wait is because the package currently
in sid should probably be unblocked. Then the new upload could be made.
OR
The new package could be uploaded and the RT contacted so that it gets
Raphael Geissert atomo64+deb...@gmail.com (11/12/2008):
Why? there's no need to wait until work piles up.
If work is committed in $VCS, then no work is piled up.
No need to generate buildd, mirror, and upgrade noise only to fix some
lintian warnings with no real bug IMHO.
But YMMV.
Mraw,
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:45:25 -0600
Paul Gevers p...@climbing.nl wrote:
It is simply unacceptable to have the debian/ directory in the
upstream source.
So how to complain about packages that don't want to change the
policy? I filed a bug at upstream [1] but it was a wontfix.
Why? What was
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:55:35PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
No need to generate buildd, mirror, and upgrade noise only to fix some
lintian warnings with no real bug IMHO.
FWIW the version curently in sid fixes a fairly nasty bug, but it
doesn't cause data loss or anything so I don't know
So how to complain about packages that don't want to change the
policy? I filed a bug at upstream [1] but it was a wontfix.
Why? What was the excuse? You'll need to persuade upstream that it is
not acceptable. How you do that is up to you - one of the main skills
of a maintainer is
Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 04:39:04PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
The only reason why I would recommend to wait is because the package
currently in sid should probably be unblocked. Then the new upload could be
made. OR
The new package could be uploaded and the RT
Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:55:35PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
No need to generate buildd, mirror, and upgrade noise only to fix some
lintian warnings with no real bug IMHO.
If it is lintian warning or error then chances are high that there *is* a bug.
1)
Raphael Geissert atomo64+deb...@gmail.com (11/12/2008):
If it is lintian warning or error then chances are high that there
*is* a bug.
Chances.
1) ancient-libtool is about porting,
is there an FTBFS bug open? Said otherwise: is there an arch where there
is an actual FTBFS?
2)
Hi Guillem
My apologies, for some estrange reason this topic was in spam label (I
already fixed this)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 23:18:24 -0600, William Vera wrote:
Ok, you can see a new revision at mentors:
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org writes:
Raphael Geissert atomo64+deb...@gmail.com (11/12/2008):
1) ancient-libtool is about porting,
is there an FTBFS bug open? Said otherwise: is there an arch where there
is an actual FTBFS?
ancient-libtool was added at the explicit request of the porters
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org (11/12/2008):
ancient-libtool was added at the explicit request of the porters
because they were seeing obscure bugs and issues on some architectures
unless a current version of libtool was used. These sorts of bugs
unfortunately are the kind that can be hidden or
49 matches
Mail list logo
