On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:51 PM, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Surely we should *only* be using debs built by a scratchbox/autobuilder.
Alien arm debs *might* run but you don't know the gcc version etc etc. And the
dependency locally may include a -maemo patched package
Hi,
ext Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
On Friday 25 of July 2008 12:16:09 Antonio Aloisio wrote:
I propose you all, to choose a standard version name for us maemo
packages. Probably we can use:
* packagename-maemo-version for the packages that are been modified
to run on maemo.
*
Jamie Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 09:17 -0400, Jason Edgecombe wrote:
BTW, is there something like debian-mentors for maemo? This would be
extremely useful for someone as myself who is a newbie when it comes
to
debian packaging.
Not that I know of but it would
Hi there,
This morning I started to work on the relocation of the Qt packages
from our repository to extras-devel.
Having a look of the packages available in extras I find out that
there is a couple of confusion on the version name.
The packages present are named:
packagename-diablo-version.deb
On Friday 25 of July 2008 12:16:09 Antonio Aloisio wrote:
I propose you all, to choose a standard version name for us maemo
packages. Probably we can use:
* packagename-maemo-version for the packages that are been modified
to run on maemo.
* packagename-version for the packages that are
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Antonio Aloisio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose you all, to choose a standard version name for us maemo packages.
It's such a good idea, it's already been done! :-)
See section 3.1 of the Maemo Packaging Policy:
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:20 +0100, Andrew Flegg wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Antonio Aloisio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose you all, to choose a standard version name for us maemo packages.
It's such a good idea, it's already been done! :-)
See section 3.1 of the Maemo
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:20 +0100, Andrew Flegg wrote:
[snip]
* Any package patched, or not from a existing deb source, needs to
have a maemo version suffix.
So every single package in extras should have a maemo suffix?
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 13:21 +0100, Andrew Flegg wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:20 +0100, Andrew Flegg wrote:
[snip]
* Any package patched, or not from a existing deb source, needs to
have a maemo version suffix.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:20 +0100, Andrew Flegg wrote:
[snip]
* Any package patched, or not from a existing deb source, needs to
have a maemo version suffix.
So every single package in extras should have a maemo
Hi!
This is how I read it too. Only if we are the upstream ourselves, we don't
need the suffix. In all other cases we need it?
If an upstream package is re-packaged or otherwise modified for maemo, a
maemo revision MUST be appended to the upstream revision. MPP section 3.2
That's my
Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
This is how I read it too. Only if we are the upstream ourselves, we don't
need the suffix. In all other cases we need it?
If an upstream package is re-packaged or otherwise modified for maemo, a
maemo revision MUST be appended to the upstream revision. MPP
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Jason Edgecombe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, so how do I handle the openafs and krb5 packages where there is an
upstream debian package, but I didn't use it because the dependencies
were so different?
Isn't that a canonical example of requiring a 'maemo'
Andrew Flegg wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Jason Edgecombe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, so how do I handle the openafs and krb5 packages where there is an
upstream debian package, but I didn't use it because the dependencies
were so different?
Isn't that a canonical
On Friday 25 July 2008 13:34:52 Johannes Schmid wrote:
OK, so I don't need a suffix for hildonmm because I am upstream myself?
What about gtkmm? On the one hand we are more or less upstream (and all
patches go upstream) on the other hand it's of course different from the
debian package.
My
Jason Edgecombe wrote:
Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
This is how I read it too. Only if we are the upstream ourselves, we don't
need the suffix. In all other cases we need it?
If an upstream package is re-packaged or otherwise modified for maemo, a
maemo revision MUST be appended to the
16 matches
Mail list logo
