On 2024-09-22 Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> On 9/6/24 4:36 AM, Jeroen Ploemen wrote:
[...]
> > Any particular reason for continuing to upload to experimental only,
> > now that version 4.x has been out for about a year with nothing major
> > reported in the bug tracker?
> You're correct, I believe it's
On 2024-07-26 Tobias Frost wrote:
[...]
> - usually d/changelog's purpose is to document the changes to the Debian
> *packaging*, not to document upstream changes. See Policy 4.6. (You've got
> your upstream changelog, that is where your upstream changes shoudl got to.
> In this case I'd wri
On 2024-07-21 Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hello, sorry, but I currently do not have time to start fixing others
> issues. I focused on the issue which Vincent reported that recent
> iproute2 package upgrade completely broke the netplug package.
[...]
OK, fair enough, I will take a look.
cu Andreas
On 2024-07-11 Phil Wyett wrote:
[...]
> Summary...
> I believe libmobi is ready for sponsorship/upload. Could a Debian
> Developer (DD) with available free time, please review this package
> and upload if you feel it is ready.
[...]
Hello,
comparing 0.12+dfsg-1 with the version currently in the
On 2023-11-10 "Preuße, Hilmar" wrote:
> On 10.11.2023 03:10, Wookey wrote:
>> I think your options are
>> 1) add an epoch (which exists to deal with this sort of problem)
>>
> Well, would like to avoid it, if possible.
I think it is also not the right solutions, epochs are imho intended to
fix o
On 2023-10-30 Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Dear all,
> I am trying to follow documentation from:
> * http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/
> and:
> *
> https://deb-o-matic.readthedocs.io/en/stable/upload.html#prepare-command-files
> Which does not seems to be working for me today;
> % dcut -U de
On 2023-10-29 Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> Looking at other Debian packages this does not look like right. However I
> have checked "python3 setup.py install --help" and tried to look at
> python3-setuptools documentation to find the correct knob/setting to
> switch t
Hello,
I am trying to unbreak building of gpgme python bindings (#1054786).
The build result differs/breaks when python3-setuptools is installed.
Afaiui python3-setuptools is a newer/extended version of python's
built-in distutil (which is scheduled for removal). If
python3-setuptools the new cod
On 2023-10-08 Hugh McMaster wrote:
[...]
> Try this in your d/watch file:
[...]
> # netpbm-free user guide
> opts="mode=svn, pgpmode=none, \
> component=userguide" \
> https://svn.code.sf.net/p/netpbm/code/userguide \
> HEAD ignore
>
> You want to match against HEAD to download the mo
Hello,
I would like to convert netpbm-free to a multiple component package, one
for the main code
http://netpbm.svn.code.sourceforge.net/p/netpbm/code/release_number/
which is versioned
and the docs from
http://netpbm.svn.code.sourceforge.net/p/netpbm/code/userguide/
with HEAD as matching‐pattern.
Hello,
if I would like to restart a daemon in a maintainerscript after
dpkg-reconfigure is there a downside of simply using
invoke-rc.d foo restart
instead of something like
if [ -d /run/systemd/system ]; then
# systemd
deb-systemd-invoke restart foo.service
else
# SysV
On 2023-07-15 Ole Streicher wrote:
> Hi,
> I am upgrading one of my packages (iraf) to a new version. The new version
> comes with a "make install", which installs everything under /usr/lib/iraf/
> (and some other places).
> The "iraf" source package needs to divide these files into user related
On 2022-04-06 Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 03:02:07PM +0100, Philip Wyett wrote:
> > Could someone point me to the documentation that relates to upload
> > of packages that have new binary packages i.e. name change during an
> > update? Specifically to the new/by-hand queue.
> D
On 2022-01-16 Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> I will probably followup with further wishes/comments later, not today
> but hopefully in next week.
[...]
Hello Thomas,
I think there are just two thing left pre upload:
1. The upload introduces an epoch because the upstream version wen
On 2022-01-16 Thomas Dickey wrote:
[...]
> I reviewed the test-data differences, didn't see a problem, and verified
> with cproto (which uses lex/yacc) that there are no differences.
> So I updated the debian files to combine the two (just packaging one
> "byacc" with backtracking).
Great.
[...
On 2022-01-16 Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 08:03:14AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> > I would like to question the introduction of another binary package:
> > * "byacc2" seems to be a (newly introduced) Debiansm. Googling for
> > "
On 2022-01-15 Thomas Dickey wrote:
[...]
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "byacc":
> * Package name: byacc
>Version : 1:2.0.20220114-1
>Upstream Author : (Thomas E. Dickey)
> * URL : https://invisible-island.net/byacc/
> * License : GPL-3, pu
On 2020-11-06 Hugh McMaster wrote:
[...]
> Sorry for the long delay. Real life got in the way.
Hello Hugh,
no worries.
> I’ve adapted your patch and made some other changes.
[...]
Thanks for doublechecking, uploaded.
cu Andreas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
s possible.
Draft atached.
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
>From 9c8f11e6e575d46d462d3f48237bd681dee5e76e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Metzler
Date:
On 2020-10-04 Hugh McMaster wrote:
[...]
> We can't remove libexif-gtk, as libexif-gtk-dev is a r-b-dep of mlt.
I missed that one.
> Interestingly, mlt doesn't use GTK2, just the libexif functionality.
[...]
Afaict it is an unused b-d, bug filed.
cu Andreas
On 2020-10-01 Hugh McMaster wrote:
[...]
> I've uploaded a new version of libexif-gtk to Debian Mentors, fixing
> the issues discussed in this thread.
> Thanks for your help with this.
Good morning Hugh,
I think this looks alright now.
I thought I should try it out and there is a only single r
On 2020-09-30 Hugh McMaster wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 22:03, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> > The transitional package makes no sense, it actually causes breakage.
> > Packages depend on libexif-gtk5 because they need a library with
> > soname lib
On 2020-09-27 Hugh McMaster wrote:
[...]
> I am looking for a sponsor to upload the package "libexif-gtk" to NEW,
> as switching to GTK 3 caused the main package to be renamed.
> * Package name: libexif-gtk
[...]
> The source builds the following binary packages:
> libexif-gtk-dev - Libra
On 2020-05-15 Hugh McMaster wrote:
> Package: sponsorship-requests
> Severity: normal
> Dear mentors and Debian PhotoTools Team members,
> I am looking for a sponsor for the package "libexif"
> * Package name: libexif
>Version : 0.6.21-7
[..]
Will do.
cu Andreas
--
`What a
On 2019-02-15 Herbert Fortes wrote:
> I working on a Debian revison for libgphoto2 and
> have this Lintian about pkg-config.
> pkg-config-references-unknown-shared-library
> The libgphoto2_port/libgphoto2_port.pc.in file has:
> Libs: -L${libdir} -lgphoto2 -lm
[...]
Hello,
Looks like a false po
rom 906ebb93e97ee71883cc265bab268597d10c35d9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Metzler
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 13:42:09 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Add lost change:
Use 'uversionmangle' instead of 'oversionmangle'.
---
debian/watch | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion
On 2018-04-29 Hugh McMaster wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 April 2018 10:11 PM, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> > 0.4.0-1 says "Switch to LGPL-2.1+ for libexif-gtk 0.4.0.". Is this
> > correct? While COPYING contains a copy of LGPL-2.1 only a single c/h
> > file (gtk-exif-
On 2018-04-29 Hugh McMaster wrote:
> Package: sponsorship-requests
> Severity: normal
> Dear mentors and Debian PhotoTools Team,
> I am looking for a sponsor for a Team Upload of the package "libexif-gtk".
> Version 0.4.0-1 is is currently in Experimental and is ready to move into
> Unstable.
On 2018-04-02 Hugh McMaster wrote:
> Package: sponsorship-requests
> Severity: normal
> Dear mentors and Debian PhotoTools Team,
> I am looking for a sponsor for a Team Upload of the package "libexif".
[...]
Hello Hugh,
looks good except for the watchfile, you need uversionmangle
instead of ov
Hello,
I would like to disable building of libelua-bin and libelua1 binary
package on amd64. [1] However negated architecture specifiers [!amd64]
are not allowed in the Architecture field of debian/control. As a hotfix
I can explicitely list all archs present in unstable/experimental.
Is there a
Jose M Calhariz wrote:
> I am changing the rules of the package amanda to debhelper 9 and I am
> stopped in a problem with dh_installman. I have checked what I know
> and everything is correct. But still I think that is something
> obvious that I am missing. Possibly the manpages have an error
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> is it possible to have uscan check multiple hosts? e.g.
>> for GNU findutils I would like to look at both stable and unstable
>> releases i.e. combining these two watchfiles:
> uscan alread
Ben Finney wrote:
> Andreas Metzler writes:
>> is it possible to have uscan check multiple hosts? e.g. for GNU
>> findutils I would like to look at both stable and unstable releases
> Are you aware the watch file is meant to find a *single* tarball?
Yes, I am aware of that.
Hello,
is it possible to have uscan check multiple hosts? e.g.
for GNU findutils I would like to look at both stable and unstable
releases i.e. combining these two watchfiles:
version=3
opts=pgpsigurlmangle=s/$/.sig/ \
ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/findutils/findutils-([\d\.\d]+)\.tar\.(?:gz|bz2|xz)
v
Daniel Lintott wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 02:39:15PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Daniel Lintott wrote:
>>> I have a package which is split into two sources (a server and
>>> gui). The server version should match the gui version (upstream
>>>
Daniel Lintott wrote:
> I have a package which is split into two sources (a server and gui). The
> server version should match the gui version (upstream version) at all times.
> Because of this when I'm creating the meta-package that will depend on
> both the gui and server, should be versioned t
On 2014-08-29 Peter wrote:
[...]
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "tkinfo"
Hello Peter,
thanks for adopting this package, I occasionally use it and will be
happy to sponsor.
[...]
> Changes since the last upload:
[...]
>* Add dh-installmime to binary-indep (Closes: #723710)
J
Hello,
given that python-gnutls is one of the last packages still depending
on libgnutls26 [1] I have thrown in a little bit of effort to prepare a
NMU fixing this.
However I am not a regular python user and would therefore appreciate
a second set of eyes doublechecking that the result is not mor
On 2014-03-02 Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Le 2 mars 2014 16:19, "Andreas Metzler" a écrit :
>> On 2014-03-02 Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "imagemagick"
[...]
>> Uploaded.
> Rejected by ftpmaster* reupl
On 2014-03-02 Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Package: sponsorship-requests
> Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages]
> Dear mentors,
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "imagemagick"
[...]
> Changes since the last upload:
> Fix three security bug
Uploaded.
Dariusz Dwornikowski wrote:
> I am working on a MaraDNS package, the upstream Author, Sam Trenholme
> suggested that maybe it could also worth packaging ndjbdns, a djbdns
> fork but with GPL licence and all bugs fixed. Also the upstream of
> ndjbdns is quite responsive and active.
[...]
Hello,
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
>> MYDHMODS := $(shell if dh_listpackages | grep -q foo-doc ; \
>> then echo "--with autoreconf,sphinxdoc" ; \
>> else echo "--with autoreconf" ; fi)
[...]
> Nic
Olе Streicher wrote:
> my package will create a separate arch-independent -doc package with
> "sphinxdoc". Since therefore sphinx is not needed for architecure
> dependent builds, I moved the build dependency of the package into the
> Build-Depends-Indep field in debian/control:
> ---
Olе Streicher wrote:
> for some of my newly uploaded packages, I got a bug report
> 'arch-dependent files in "Multi-Arch: same" package' [1]. The files in
> question are in /usr/share/doc/.
> However, these differences do not come from differences in the
> architecture but from different build en
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>> Seems that different architectures have different symbols.
> To me it doesn't look that simple, since the missing symbols are the
> same on many arches. It seems like upstream is basing the
> presence/absence of some pub
Daniel Lintott wrote:
> On 10/12/13 19:21, Dominik George wrote:
>>> [2] http://qa.debian.org/cgi-bin/watch?pkg=vpcs_0.5b0-1
>> In that special case, I'd even say your versioning "mistake" is
>> good because upstream's ~ notation is a mess. That char is reserved
>> for Debian ;) (yes, that's fals
Daniel Lintott wrote:
[..]
> I have realised that in an earlier package upload, I made a blunder
> with regards the version of the package.
> The package was versioned as 0.5b0-1, though I somehow missed, despite
> testing the watch file that this should have been 0.5~b0-1.
> I have seen some di
On 2013-10-20 Stefan Ott wrote:
> Package: sponsorship-requests
> Severity: normal
> Dear mentors,
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "id3"
[...]
Hello,
I have just uploaded the package.
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful
On 2007-02-24 Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 07:30:38PM +0100, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
> > Build-Depends: dpkg-dev (>=1.13.19)
[...]
> [Thread from -devel diverted to -mentors.]
I do not follow that list, thanks for the cc.
> I was j
On 2005-06-14 "Zak B. Elep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Cc'ing Andreas Metzler as he was my last sponsor ;)]
> Hi! I've repackaged gtklp to accomodate the new version 1.0d. There
> are no bugfixes in this package :( but I've done some changes to
> de
On 2004-09-11 MiguelGea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On ds, 2004-09-11 at 00:12, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > MiguelGea wrote:
> > > install in /usr/share/man/man* but no in usr/X11R6/man/man1
> > Why would you (Policy 12.1)?
> If I execute lintian -i xmountains it say to me this:
> E: xmountains:
On 2004-09-11 MiguelGea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On ds, 2004-09-11 at 00:12, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > MiguelGea wrote:
> > > install in /usr/share/man/man* but no in usr/X11R6/man/man1
> > Why would you (Policy 12.1)?
> If I execute lintian -i xmountains it say to me this:
> E: xmountains:
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 05:51:47PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:18:21PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> A maintainer script with a #!/bin/sh line should only use posix
> >> syntax. If one
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:18:21PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> A maintainer script with a #!/bin/sh line should only use posix
> syntax. If one needs more features (e.g. test -L), one can instead use
> #!/bin/bash.
test -L is POSIX afaict.
> However, this seems unnecessarily restricted to me. da
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 05:51:47PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:18:21PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> A maintainer script with a #!/bin/sh line should only use posix
> >> syntax. If one
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:18:21PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> A maintainer script with a #!/bin/sh line should only use posix
> syntax. If one needs more features (e.g. test -L), one can instead use
> #!/bin/bash.
test -L is POSIX afaict.
> However, this seems unnecessarily restricted to me. da
On 2004-09-04 Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:02:26PM +0200, Michael Schiansky wrote:
[...]
> > Why do you call dpatch 'obfuscated' ?
[...]
> Compared to simply making the source changes directly, it's obfuscated.
Agreed.
> It's also obfuscated for users who
On 2004-09-04 Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:02:26PM +0200, Michael Schiansky wrote:
[...]
> > Why do you call dpatch 'obfuscated' ?
[...]
> Compared to simply making the source changes directly, it's obfuscated.
Agreed.
> It's also obfuscated for users who
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 09:45:26AM -0700, Paul Telford wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Why do you need to upload to unstable at all? Is there something wrong
> > with the version in unstable? Can't you simply upload 0.6.2-3
> > unchanged (excep
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 09:06:01AM -0700, Paul Telford wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > digikam has been removed from testing, because it depended on libexif9.
> > The version of digikam in unstable will almost certainly depend on
> > kdelibs4 3.3 once it's been successfully
On 2004-08-30 Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm wondering how to interpret, especially the last part.
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=tetex-bin
> First it says:
> * Updating tetex-bin makes 3 depending packages uninstallable on alpha:
> jbibtex-bin, jmpost, ptex-bin
On 2004-08-29 "Zak B. Elep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gtklp (1.0pre1-1) unstable; urgency=low
[...]
I would not use this version number. You'd be forced to either use a
epoch for the real 1.0 or "1.0rel"
$ dpkg --compare-versions 0.9u-1 '<<' '1.0pre1-1' || echo not ok
$ dpkg --compare-versions
On 2004-08-25 "Zak B. Elep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys, gonna make this quick, as I'm in a public Knoppix box:
> I've just finished a very *late* deb of gtklp-0.9u. Nothing really worth
> noting, except that it might get into Sarge (but, in all probability, it won't
> :()
Could you plea
On 2004-08-25 "Zak B. Elep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys, gonna make this quick, as I'm in a public Knoppix box:
> I've just finished a very *late* deb of gtklp-0.9u. Nothing really worth
> noting, except that it might get into Sarge (but, in all probability, it won't
> :()
Could you plea
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:35:34PM +0100, Mark Hymers wrote:
[...]
> There is a KDE NMU in incoming at the moment which fixes the libopenexr
> issue. Could you offer me one piece of advice? Should I make the
> Build-Depends on kdelibs4 versioned (i.e. kdelibs4 (>> 3.3.0-1.1)) to
> make sure buil
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:35:34PM +0100, Mark Hymers wrote:
[...]
> There is a KDE NMU in incoming at the moment which fixes the libopenexr
> issue. Could you offer me one piece of advice? Should I make the
> Build-Depends on kdelibs4 versioned (i.e. kdelibs4 (>> 3.3.0-1.1)) to
> make sure buil
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:28:29PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in debian-devel:
>
> > These packages are frozen, i.e. newer uploads to unstable won't go
> > into testing. The official way is to upload also a package to
> > testing. To upload a package to te
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:28:29PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in debian-devel:
>
> > These packages are frozen, i.e. newer uploads to unstable won't go
> > into testing. The official way is to upload also a package to
> > testing. To upload a package to te
On 2004-08-23 Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> the problem is that the package(s) in stable are called irda-tools and
> irda-common and the current version is called irda-utils. when doing a
> dist-ugprade from stable to unstable, irda-tools and irda-common are
> not replaced a
On 2004-08-23 Sebastian Henschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> the problem is that the package(s) in stable are called irda-tools and
> irda-common and the current version is called irda-utils. when doing a
> dist-ugprade from stable to unstable, irda-tools and irda-common are
> not replaced a
On 2004-08-21 Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-18 16:54:27 +0200]:
> > The testing scripts did not run succesfully tonight.
> Any expected date when they will be fixed? It seems they are sti
On 2004-08-21 Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-18 16:54:27 +0200]:
> > The testing scripts did not run succesfully tonight.
> Any expected date when they will be fixed? It seems they are sti
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 04:23:51PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> xpat2 is installed for m68k a couple of days ago, though it isn't entering
> testing because it has "not yet built on m68k"??
>
> It has been built 2 times according buildd.d.o, it is installed according
> to buildd.net, but waiting for
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 04:23:51PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> xpat2 is installed for m68k a couple of days ago, though it isn't entering
> testing because it has "not yet built on m68k"??
>
> It has been built 2 times according buildd.d.o, it is installed according
> to buildd.net, but waiting for
On 2004-08-17 Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Two packages, libdbi-perl and libdbd-csv-perl have problems going to
> testing also each of them seems to be fine and they should be able
> to go in simultaneously.
> Can anybody explain to me what's wrong here?
[...]
Testing does not
On 2004-08-17 Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Two packages, libdbi-perl and libdbd-csv-perl have problems going to
> testing also each of them seems to be fine and they should be able
> to go in simultaneously.
> Can anybody explain to me what's wrong here?
[...]
Testing does not
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:58:26PM +0100, John Hedges wrote:
[...]
> I've put a new copy at the above address.
I made a last minute change to debian/control and uploaded the package.
-Description: Sound player for MPEG-1,2 layer 1,2,3 Based on maplay, this
- package decodes layer I, II, and III M
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 05:58:26PM +0100, John Hedges wrote:
[...]
> I've put a new copy at the above address.
I made a last minute change to debian/control and uploaded the package.
-Description: Sound player for MPEG-1,2 layer 1,2,3 Based on maplay, this
- package decodes layer I, II, and III M
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:24:52PM +0100, John Hedges wrote:
[...]
> If you feel inclined to take a further look, 0.9.5.2-6 is now at
> http://www.callpoint.org/splay/
Almost ok. debian/control must not hardcode the shlibs-dependencies,
use ${shlibs:Depends} instead.
cu andreas
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 03:24:52PM +0100, John Hedges wrote:
[...]
> If you feel inclined to take a further look, 0.9.5.2-6 is now at
> http://www.callpoint.org/splay/
Almost ok. debian/control must not hardcode the shlibs-dependencies,
use ${shlibs:Depends} instead.
cu andreas
On 2004-08-16 Salvador Abreu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GNU Prolog (the gprolog package) is a native-code compiler with
> back-ends for several targets and *no* "generic" target: it can't work
> for a given architecture unless a back-end has been written for it.
> I've tried to deal with this wi
On 2004-08-16 John Hedges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> There is a slight complication: the QA team uploaded a version that
> fixed some arch bugs by setting architecture to all [1]. I don't seem to
> be able to get the latest sources
[...]
0.9.5.2-5 is available on every mirror, e.g.
http://
On 2004-08-16 Salvador Abreu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GNU Prolog (the gprolog package) is a native-code compiler with
> back-ends for several targets and *no* "generic" target: it can't work
> for a given architecture unless a back-end has been written for it.
> I've tried to deal with this wi
On 2004-08-16 John Hedges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> There is a slight complication: the QA team uploaded a version that
> fixed some arch bugs by setting architecture to all [1]. I don't seem to
> be able to get the latest sources
[...]
0.9.5.2-5 is available on every mirror, e.g.
http://
On 2004-08-15 Rolandas Juodzbalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I implemented all changes you suggested and even decreased version number ;)
> New files are uploaded in ftp. Please check everyone who needs it.
Thanks, that is better. However debveinan copyright now looks as if
you were upstre
On 2004-08-15 Rolandas Juodzbalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I implemented all changes you suggested and even decreased version number ;)
> New files are uploaded in ftp. Please check everyone who needs it.
Thanks, that is better. However debveinan copyright now looks as if
you were upstre
On 2004-08-15 Rolandas Juodzbalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Metzler wrote:
>>On 2004-08-15 Rolandas Juodzbalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I taked maintenance of this package from Søren Boll Overgaard, who has
>>> no time for it.
>>>
On 2004-08-15 Rolandas Juodzbalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Metzler wrote:
>>On 2004-08-15 Rolandas Juodzbalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I taked maintenance of this package from Søren Boll Overgaard, who has
>>> no time for it.
>>>
On 2004-08-15 Rolandas Juodzbalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I taked maintenance of this package from Søren Boll Overgaard, who has no
> time for it.
> And he has no time for sponsoring this package. If someone can, please
> sponsorship.
> New package is located at ftp://ftp.home.lt/pub/debian/
On 2004-08-15 Rolandas Juodzbalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I taked maintenance of this package from Søren Boll Overgaard, who has no
> time for it.
> And he has no time for sponsoring this package. If someone can, please
> sponsorship.
> New package is located at ftp://ftp.home.lt/pub/debian/
On 2004-08-15 Rolandas Juodzbalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I taked maintenance of this package from Søren Boll Overgaard, who has no
> time for it.
> And he has no time for sponsoring this package. If someone can, please
> sponsorship.
> New package is located at ftp://ftp.home.lt/pub/debian/
On 2004-08-15 Rolandas Juodzbalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I taked maintenance of this package from Søren Boll Overgaard, who has no
> time for it.
> And he has no time for sponsoring this package. If someone can, please
> sponsorship.
> New package is located at ftp://ftp.home.lt/pub/debian/
On 2004-08-06 Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I contributed a very small amount to the subversion package. What I see
> from packages.qa.debian.org is that building it on alpha and other archs
> are failed as the newest apache2 cause trouble with the dependencies.
> The probl
On 2004-08-06 Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I contributed a very small amount to the subversion package. What I see
> from packages.qa.debian.org is that building it on alpha and other archs
> are failed as the newest apache2 cause trouble with the dependencies.
> The probl
On 2004-08-05 Brian Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As my first foray into debian packaging, I want to create a
> package that installs a cron job to be run daily.
> My approach is to install a simple script into /etc/cron.daily/
> that calls a more complex script which I install into /usr
On 2004-08-05 Brian Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As my first foray into debian packaging, I want to create a
> package that installs a cron job to be run daily.
> My approach is to install a simple script into /etc/cron.daily/
> that calls a more complex script which I install into /usr
On 2004-08-05 Alexander List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I uploaded a non-free package (diablo) two days ago and wonder what
> I can do to make the buillds attempt to build it for all the
> non-i386 archs...
The autobuilders will not build nonfree packages no matter what you
try. - You can build
On 2004-08-05 Alexander List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I uploaded a non-free package (diablo) two days ago and wonder what
> I can do to make the buillds attempt to build it for all the
> non-i386 archs...
The autobuilders will not build nonfree packages no matter what you
try. - You can build
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 03:03:31PM +0200, Kevin Glynn wrote:
> I am the (new) maintainer for mozart. I have one Serious bug
> outstanding:
>
>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=mozart).
>
> The bug was tagged wontfix, woody. The bug has been fixed in versions
> later than wood
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 03:03:31PM +0200, Kevin Glynn wrote:
> I am the (new) maintainer for mozart. I have one Serious bug
> outstanding:
>
>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=mozart).
>
> The bug was tagged wontfix, woody. The bug has been fixed in versions
> later than wood
1 - 100 of 594 matches
Mail list logo
