Re: How to create quilt-based source packages using debuild

Start with the unpatched upstream source. Copy the debian dir in including debian/patches/. echo 3.0 (quilt) debian/source/format remove patch system from debian/rules if present debuild Thanks for the pointer. However, since the archive does not support Format 3.0 (quilt) yet, I will stick

Problems pdebuilding a quilt-based package

-buildpackage: source package umlet dpkg-buildpackage: source version 9.1-1 dpkg-buildpackage: source changed by Benjamin Mesing bensm...@gmx.net dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture amd64 fakeroot debian/rules clean # do not abort if quilt pop fails

Re: Problems pdebuilding a quilt-based package

Hello, fakeroot debian/rules clean # do not abort if quilt pop fails (this is usually if there no patches applied quilt pop -a || true No patch removed quilt push 10_addBuildInfrastructure No patches in series You probably have a

How to create quilt-based source packages using debuild

Hi, I am having trouble understanding how to build a quilt based source-package. My packaging is based on quilt, but when running debuild, debuild creates a traditional style source package. I've tried to add Format: 3.0 (quilt) to the control file and a Format 3 source package is correctly

Package extraction process (dpkg-source, format 1.0 and 3.0 (quilt))

Hello, I am trying to understand the new dpkg-source format 3.0 (quilt). There are two points in the documentation (man-page) I do not understand: * In the section Building of the description of 3.0 (quilt) it is stated: The updated debian directory and the list of

Re: Package extraction process (dpkg-source, format 1.0 and 3.0 (quilt))

* In the same section there is a note: Note: dpkg-source expects the source tree to have all patches applied when you generate the source package. This is not the case when the source tree has been obtained by unpacking a source package using the

Re: Suggests vs. Recommends

Hello 'packagesearch' is a package which uses a plugin architecture. Each plugin provides a way to search for packages, e.g. doing a full text search, searching by filenames or orphaned packages. All plugins are shipped together with the main application in a single package. However,

Suggests vs. Recommends

Hello, the latest message on debian-devel-announce made me rethink my decision for the dependencies for my package 'packagesearch'. Having read the policy again and again and also through the recent debian-devel thread [1], I am not sure whether to use *Recommends* or *Suggests*.

Re: Prompt to install missing software?

I have a PyGTK-based program that has an optional dependency on the package python-matplotlib. Is there any way under Debian (and hopefully also Ubuntu) that I can trigger gtk-debi or something like that when the user requests to use the part of my program that depends on stuff they

Creating a source tarball for repackaged source using dpkg-source -b

Hello, the developer reference describes how to do the repackaging of upstream source. Among others the following two points are mentioned for the repackaged .orig.tar.gz: * should use packagename-upstream-version.orig as the name of the top-level directory in its tarball. This

Re: Why are the buildds able to find a Build-Dep on their own?

And isn't it a good idea to declare a build-dep even in this case? proftpd would FTBS if libacl1-dev would drop its dependency on libattr1-dev. Is there a commonly accepted rule on these particular cases? There is. If the package directly depends on libattr1-dev (this usually means it

Re: Dependency on Package where Upstream License Changed to Non-Free

Hello, The source of the EPS lib is contained in the UMLet release Then it's not an external dependency, you have a fork. A fork that is - and therefore will remain - GPL. What you may miss out on are updates, that's all. It was shipped with UMLet only for convenience. But since jibble

Dependency on Package where Upstream License Changed to Non-Free

Hello, I am in the process of packaging UMLet [1] which depends on the external library EPS Graphics2d [2]. Apparantly that libray used to be available under GPL but is now distributed on a commercial basis. The source of the EPS lib is contained in the UMLet release, therefore I guess, that

Re: Problem with really long argument list to dpkg-shlibdeps

Hi, The package generates around 1000 binary modules/plugins. Running dpkg-shlibdeps over these files makes for really weird errors[1], due to the length of the command line passed to dpkg-shlibdeps (at least that's what I believe). Shortening the line or passing all files in a for-loop

Re: Reassigning Bugs

On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 15:20 +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Monday 25 September 2006 16:19, Benjamin Mesing wrote: clone 12345 -1 reassign -1 apt-file retitle -1 apt-file: known to break packagesearch ... thanks However, the bugs live seperated from each other after cloning. So

Re: Reassigning Bugs

Hello Is there a way to leave the bug visible for my package, but reassign it to apt-file? Reassign it to packagesearch,apt-file ? Is this an undocumented feature? From the documentation of the BTS: reassign bugnumber package [ version ] Records that bug

Re: Reassigning Bugs

Hello Options I have thought about, but found not to be optimal: * File a bug report against apt-file, and block the bug against packagesearch by the new one - close the bug against packagesaerch as soon as the bug in apt-file is closed. This option does

Reassigning Bugs

Hello, I have a bug which is not a bug in my package (packagesearch). However, reassigning it to the package that causes that bug (apt-file), would leave it no longer visible for my package, and thus probably result in the bug to be posted again. Is there a way to leave the bug visible for my

Re: Question on a package split

Hello, Either way, I don't think that's too much splitting, but you could eliminate one library by mergeing the packages for libkmobiletools_at and libkmobiletools together. Ok, then I will have: kmobiletools libkmobiletools libkmobiletools-dev and kmobiletools-plugin-kontact.

Re: libapt-pkg/python-apt API documentation?

Hello is there any documentation of the libapt-pkg resp. python-apt API? AFAICS their API is very much the same. libapt-pkg-doc is, hm... an interesting, though incomplete description of APT internals and concepts, but not much help wrt the libapt-pkg API. I have never really found any good

Re: RFC: quilt-el

On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 16:28 +0200, Soren Hansen wrote: On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:18:39PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: 1. package stable release version 2. package developing version and don't apply any extra patches 3. package developing version and apply bug fix patch 4. wait for

Re: Package does not build on ia64 and sparc

Thanks you all for your explanations. To summarize, I will take no action regarding sparc and inform the apt-front developers regarding the failure on ia64. Best regards Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be

Package does not build on ia64 and sparc

Hello, my package does not build on ia64 due to what seems to be dependency problems: /usr/bin/sudo /usr/bin/apt-get --purge $CHROOT_OPTIONS -q -y install debhelper libapt-front-dev libqt4-dev qt4-dev-tools docbook-to-man pkg-config libmysqlclient15-dev Reading Package Lists...

RE: Package does not build on ia64 and sparc

Hello, What package is it? It's packagesearch I've got a sparc64 (sun4u) machine that I can try the build on if you like? That would be helpful, please do so. Best regards Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be

Re: packaging a release

find release/$(deb_dir_name) -type d -name CVS | xargs rm -rf You know about cvs export? This would spare you to having to delete the CVS directories. Best regards Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be

Re: packaging a release

But using cvs export also means I'd have to check-in every change I want to test, doesn't it? Either that, or doing the changes in the export, and manually merging the changes you've done back into your working directory. Best regards, Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How to 'su' to root from a script using Xdialog?

Q 2:How to avoid permission problems on $DISPLAY (root can not start a program on $USER x-window) sux does this, though it is somewhat limited. E.g. if you ssh -X to the target and run sux there, it won't work. Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email

Re: Question about packaging a kernel module

Is the current kernel source available as a binary package? Why do you need a binary package? You can always do apt-get source linux-image-version-and-arch - most likely this works for Ubuntu too. Besides there seems to be a binary package for the kernel source in Debian:

Re: Depending on non-buggy versions?

If you require a minimal version, you should have a versioned (build-)depenancy. (Unless stable already has the required version, you don't need to support installing your package on older versions that that.) If there was a buggy version that was only in unstable for a short time, you

Depending on non-buggy versions?

Hello, I am wondering if my package should depend/build-depend on a special minimum version of another package, if my package fails to work with earlier buggy versions of the packages I depend on. For example the libqt4 is buggy in version 4.1 which causes my package (packagesearch) to crash.

Re: Interest in packaging GNU Shishi and GNU Generic Security Service?

Hello W: shishi source: native-package-with-dash-version N: N: Native packaging should only be used if a piece of software was N: written specifically to be turned into a Debian package. In this case, N: the version number should not contain a debian revision part. N: N: Native