Re: RFS: syx
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:53:35 +0200 Jeffrey Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/25 Luca Bruno [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I uploaded the -1 version again and removed the further changelog entries. It builds now, but you have some warnings to fix: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol syx_interp_enter_context used by debian/syx-gtk/usr/lib/syx/gtk/libsyx-gtk.so.0.0.0 found in none of the libraries. dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: debian/syx-gtk/usr/lib/syx/gtk/libsyx-gtk.so.0.0.0 shouldn't be linked with libgthread-2.0.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols). Now running lintian... W: syx source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.7.3 (current is 3.8.0) W: syx-x11: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-x11: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-readline: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-readline: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-gtk: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-gtk: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: libsyx0: package-contains-empty-directory usr/lib/syx/ Finished running lintian. Ok, though I've already tried and I wasn't able to fix these warnings. - -- http://syx.googlecode.com - Smalltalk YX http://lethalman.blogspot.com - Thoughts about computer technologies http://www.ammazzatecitutti.org - Ammazzateci tutti -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIY7sTw9Qj+8Kak3ERAjCDAJ9daxHYz739WMGrks30MuZVHwNxTACfYPsx aEiaXG69IveESxRroL4hoHE= =NXnf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: RFS: pidgin-privacy-please
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 09:52 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Stefan Ott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package pidgin-privacy-please. The upstream website says this requires pidgin itself to be patched, has the Debian pidgin package integrated that patch? According to debian/README.debian in the p-p-p source: Since the current pidgin package for debian does not include the patches which would be required in order for this plugin to offer auto-replies on blocked messages, said feature was removed from this debian package. -- Tim Retout [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: pidgin-privacy-please
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Richard Laager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 09:52 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Stefan Ott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package pidgin-privacy-please. The upstream website says this requires pidgin itself to be patched, has the Debian pidgin package integrated that patch? Last I checked, no. Here's the comment from the p-p-p upstream README [0]: Since version 2.3.0, pidgin includes the auth-signals patch, thus you'll only need to apply the patch for blocked-signals. If you choose not to apply that patch, pidgin-privacy-please won't be able to send auto-replies when a message has been blocked. While I'm not against the idea of those signals, sending an auto-reply when a message is blocked seems pretty counter-intuitive to me. In situations where you block all messages from people who are not on your contact list, an auto-reply telling them to request your authorization first is quite handy. cheers -- Stefan Ott http://www.ott.net/ Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition. -- Timothy Leary -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: beginner's questions
thank you Kamaraju -- Dionysis Kalofonos Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote: posted mailed Dionysis Kalofonos wrote: Hello, I am writing you because i want to help but i don't know how to start. But before i move on to my questions let me say that at the moment i'm mainly interested in sporadic bug fixing as package maintenance requires a commitment that at the moment i am unable to offer. Bug fixing is important. So you would be doing the Debian project a huge help. 1) Having found a bug report that i would like to work on - Which is the source file i download? the orig or the dsc? the debian one or the upstream one? apt-get source package-name If you are reading the bug report in the debian BTS then you need to download Debian's source. Since the problem could be Debian specific and nothing to do with upstream (ex:- packaging related issues). You will be sending patches to Debian BTS in this case. If the problem is not specific to Debian (ex:- bug in the code, segfaults, run time errors etc.,) then also you can download source from Debian. But the problem is most likely in the upstream's source code. The patches can be sent to BTS and can also be forwarded to upstream (although the maintainer would do this anyway). - Do i need to contact first the maintainer of the package that i intend to work on some bug? The ultimate idea is not to have two people working on the same issue. If you think reporting to maintainer would help him work on something else, then go ahead and contact him. But for trivial problems (ex:- modifying dependencies on a package to solve an FTBFS bug etc.,), you can just send in the patch directly. 2) Having obtained the source, before i start making my modifications should i apply the existing patches appearing in diff.gz or should i work directly on the original code? apply the diff.gz 3) Having done my changes do i need to prepare and submit a package containing the new modified version? Even though i might not need to offer a package do i need to make sure that the resulting code can be properly packaged? Or do i simply submit the patch and the maintainers worry about the rest? What is it more useful for the maintainer? maintainers would definitely prefer patches. No need to send the whole package. You can send the patch to the bug report directly. The maintainers receive all those emails. hth raju -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some license issues (Was Re: RFS: unionfs-fuse)
Hello Kapil, thanks again for your help! On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Hello, Mentors with some experience ith license issues may want to chip in here! On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bernd Schubert wrote: - Please comply with section 4.2 of the Maintainer's guide I tried my best to fulfill these reqirements dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/unionfs-fuse/unionfs-fuse_0. 20-2.dsc The general consensus is that the debian/copyright file should contain details about the copyright for each file that is included not just the primary files. I have enclosed a sample debian/copyright file for your package. You might wish to edit it before including it. Thanks at lot! I modified a bit following the wiki page Richard posted (http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat#head-133d3ff18d9a3119d48e96f0c8aca4a37391769f). In detail I changed License to other. From the wiki page it not clear to me if it ok to have the license at the end of the file. All examples there have the license text directly below the License field. I also removed the Authors field, since it does not exist on the wiki page. License: other The complete text of this license can be found at the end of this file in the paragraph Modified BSD 3-Clause Another point is that I am not very clear on the compatability of the CPL license (used in elfhash*) with the BSD code. It _seems_ to be OK and so I would upload your package, but it would be nice if you have a reference (URL or e-mail) readily available to clarify this. Fixed now, by rewriting the elfhash function. I just uploaded another version: dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/unionfs-fuse/unionfs-fuse_0.20-3.dsc Thanks, Bernd PS: I didn't try to upload the package for several months, since I was all the time afraid of the formalisms like these. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some license issues (Was Re: RFS: unionfs-fuse)
Dear Bernd, On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Bernd Schubert wrote: Thanks at lot! I modified a bit following the wiki page Richard posted (http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat#head-133d3ff18d9a3119d48e96f0c8aca4a37391769f). In detail I changed License to other. From the wiki page it not clear to me if it ok to have the license at the end of the file. All examples there have the license text directly below the License field. I also removed the Authors field, since it does not exist on the wiki page. Looks good. Fixed now, by rewriting the elfhash function. That's quick! dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/unionfs-fuse/unionfs-fuse_0.20-3.dsc PS: I didn't try to upload the package for several months, since I was all the time afraid of the formalisms like these. I hope that this response has been encouraging rather than otherwise. I have one and a half more nit-picks. - The debian/copyright.in file no longer has any use and can be removed. - You may want to install the CREDITS file in /usr/share/doc/unionfs-fuse using dh_installdocs Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: poco (updated package)
Hello George, 2008/6/25 George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Krzysztof Burghardt wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.3.2+dfsg1-2 of my package poco. [...] The upload would fix these bugs: 487392, 487394, 487934 An excellent bug handling as well as prompt post-NMU reaction! So, uploaded and thanks for your work (no need to thank me back as well as to CC me, since, I'm subscribed to -mentors ;-) I just realized that I forgot to add new patch to patches/00list, so pacakge is still buggy. Version 1.3.2+dfsg1-3 has this missing line add. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/poco/poco_1.3.2+dfsg1-3.dsc -- Krzysztof Burghardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.burghardt.pl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some license issues (Was Re: RFS: unionfs-fuse)
Hello Kapil, On Thursday 26 June 2008, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Dear Bernd, On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Bernd Schubert wrote: Thanks at lot! I modified a bit following the wiki page Richard posted (http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat#head-133d3ff18d9a3119d4 8e96f0c8aca4a37391769f). In detail I changed License to other. From the wiki page it not clear to me if it ok to have the license at the end of the file. All examples there have the license text directly below the License field. I also removed the Authors field, since it does not exist on the wiki page. Looks good. Fixed now, by rewriting the elfhash function. That's quick! one of the advantages when one knows every line of the code :) dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/unionfs-fuse/unionfs-fuse_0. 20-3.dsc PS: I didn't try to upload the package for several months, since I was all the time afraid of the formalisms like these. I hope that this response has been encouraging rather than otherwise. Well, yes and no ;) For this package all of this is still ok, since the package is rather small. Your help and efforts are great and very appreciated, of course! On the other we (q-leap) also have our own debian ofed packages and actually we also want to upload these. But compared to unionfs-fuse ofed-1.3 is huge (38 packages) and I'm really scared of the debian-upload process. I have one and a half more nit-picks. - The debian/copyright.in file no longer has any use and can be removed. - You may want to install the CREDITS file in /usr/share/doc/unionfs-fuse using dh_installdocs Thanks for spotting that. Fixed now. I just uploaded another version. dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/unionfs-fuse/unionfs-fuse_0.20-4.dsc Thanks again for all your help, Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: syx
2008/6/26 Luca Bruno [EMAIL PROTECTED]: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol syx_interp_enter_context used by debian/syx-gtk/usr/lib/syx/gtk/libsyx-gtk.so.0.0.0 found in none of the libraries. This presumably means that you have forgotten to link one of the libraries. See the man page for dpkg-shlibdeps. dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: debian/syx-gtk/usr/lib/syx/gtk/libsyx-gtk.so.0.0.0 shouldn't be linked with libgthread-2.0.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols). I've fixed this in the past with LDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,defs,--as-needed, but then here the package FTBFS. It seems the -Bsymbolic-functions flag is currently necessary. Perhaps someone here with more expertise than I have can advise how to fix this warning. Now running lintian... W: syx source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.7.3 (current is 3.8.0) You have set Standards-Version: 3.7.3 The above can be fixed by going through /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz to check if any of the policy changes are applicable, and then setting Standards-Version: 3.8.0 W: syx-x11: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-x11: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-readline: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-readline: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-gtk: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-gtk: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig I don't know how to fix this. Anybody else? W: libsyx0: package-contains-empty-directory usr/lib/syx/ This can be fixed by removing the usr/lib usr/lib/syx lines from libsyx0.dirs The overrides file can be deleted. Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: syx
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:53:28 +0200 Jeffrey Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/26 Luca Bruno [EMAIL PROTECTED]: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol syx_interp_enter_context used by debian/syx-gtk/usr/lib/syx/gtk/libsyx-gtk.so.0.0.0 found in none of the libraries. This presumably means that you have forgotten to link one of the libraries. See the man page for dpkg-shlibdeps. They're linked against libsyx, those are plugins built inside the same source. dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: debian/syx-gtk/usr/lib/syx/gtk/libsyx-gtk.so.0.0.0 shouldn't be linked with libgthread-2.0.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols). I've fixed this in the past with LDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,defs,--as-needed, but then here the package FTBFS. It seems the -Bsymbolic-functions flag is currently necessary. Perhaps someone here with more expertise than I have can advise how to fix this warning. Will check, thanks. Now running lintian... W: syx source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.7.3 (current is 3.8.0) You have set Standards-Version: 3.7.3 The above can be fixed by going through /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz to check if any of the policy changes are applicable, and then setting Standards-Version: 3.8.0 Oh didn't notice that, have you created a new standard early? W: syx-x11: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-x11: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-readline: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-readline: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-gtk: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig W: syx-gtk: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig I don't know how to fix this. Anybody else? I've tried to create a postinst and postrm for all but I get other warnings or errors too. I will retry again. W: libsyx0: package-contains-empty-directory usr/lib/syx/ This can be fixed by removing the usr/lib usr/lib/syx lines from libsyx0.dirs The overrides file can be deleted. I would like to hold the empty dir because it's the plugins' dir. Is this an error? Thanks very much for your help. - -- http://syx.googlecode.com - Smalltalk YX http://lethalman.blogspot.com - Thoughts about computer technologies http://www.ammazzatecitutti.org - Ammazzateci tutti -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIZGb+w9Qj+8Kak3ERAi2pAJ4jLELwRFGpHHe948O/4J75stjXggCfcuH6 IoPhcCVJRl67V9KihUW6UpQ= =v0VD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Problem with implicit rule for .o files and overriding of CXXFLAGS.
Am Donnerstag, den 26.06.2008, 09:18 +1000 schrieb Trent W. Buck: Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: while working on an update to the `proda' package, I realised that a compilation option, DVERSION=\1.00\, was discarded during the build of the Debian binary package. The reason is very simple: OTHERFLAGS = -DVERSION=\1.00\ CXXFLAGS = -g -W -Wall -pedantic $(OTHERFLAGS) Why can't you simply change = to +=, thereby appending these flags to whatever is supplied by the user? Overriding CXXFLAGS makes all '=', '+=' etc. useless. You will need the `override' directive! override CXXFLAGS += $(OTHERFLAGS) However, there are better (and non-GNU-make specific) solutions: DEFS, CPPFLAGS, _CPPFLAGS, ... Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with implicit rule for .o files and overriding of CXXFLAGS.
Sorry for the CC. I was away and missed the discussion :) Am Mittwoch, den 25.06.2008, 13:24 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy: while working on an update to the `proda' package, I realised that a compilation option, DVERSION=\1.00\, was discarded during the build of the Debian binary package. The reason is very simple: OTHERFLAGS = -DVERSION=\1.00\ CXXFLAGS = -g -W -Wall -pedantic $(OTHERFLAGS) Talk to the upstream author to use e.g. (GNU make specific): override CXXFLAGS += $(OTHERFLAGS) or tell him to better use one of the following: DEFS += -DVERSION=\1.00\ AM_CPPFLAGS += -DVERSION=\1.00\ foo_CPPFLAGS += -DVERSION=\1.00\ ... These are normnally not overwritten by the user and the correct place to leave a -D switch. There is enough documentation out there to find the correct solution. [..] My problem is that I do not know the contents of the implicit rule building the .o files from the .h files, nor how I can tell to make to add $(OTHERFLAGS) to this implicite rule. [..] Any idea ? Read /usr/share/doc/make-doc/. There you find all built-in rules. (Sorry, if you already got this information - I'm still receiving/processing mails). Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: syx
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:53:28 +0200 Jeffrey Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: debian/syx-gtk/usr/lib/syx/gtk/libsyx-gtk.so.0.0.0 shouldn't be linked with libgthread-2.0.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols). I've fixed this in the past with LDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,defs,--as-needed, but then here the package FTBFS. It seems the -Bsymbolic-functions flag is currently necessary. Perhaps someone here with more expertise than I have can advise how to fix this warning. I've tried with -Wl,--as-needed (-z defs will give compilation errors). The result is the same. objdump -x debian/tmp/usr/lib/syx/gtk/libsyx-gtk.so|grep NEEDED NEEDED libgthread-2.0.so.0 NEEDED librt.so.1 NEEDED libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libatk-1.0.so.0 NEEDED libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libm.so.6 NEEDED libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 NEEDED libpango-1.0.so.0 NEEDED libcairo.so.2 NEEDED libgobject-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libgmodule-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libdl.so.2 NEEDED libglib-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libpthread.so.0 NEEDED libc.so.6 You see e.g. libgthread is needed someway even syx-gtk.so doesn't use any of its symbols (I don't know why) - -- http://syx.googlecode.com - Smalltalk YX http://lethalman.blogspot.com - Thoughts about computer technologies http://www.ammazzatecitutti.org - Ammazzateci tutti -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIZHMhw9Qj+8Kak3ERAihDAKCGAl2yLb8u0a05ISf3Xk+sOqad8ACfTbML UoO8QRTTl4esXMYD478lDkU= =EM39 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: RFS: syx
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:57:03PM -0500, Luca Bruno wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:53:28 +0200 Jeffrey Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: debian/syx-gtk/usr/lib/syx/gtk/libsyx-gtk.so.0.0.0 shouldn't be linked with libgthread-2.0.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols). I've fixed this in the past with LDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,defs,--as-needed, but then here the package FTBFS. It seems the -Bsymbolic-functions flag is currently necessary. Perhaps someone here with more expertise than I have can advise how to fix this warning. I've tried with -Wl,--as-needed (-z defs will give compilation errors). The result is the same. objdump -x debian/tmp/usr/lib/syx/gtk/libsyx-gtk.so|grep NEEDED NEEDED libgthread-2.0.so.0 NEEDED librt.so.1 NEEDED libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libatk-1.0.so.0 NEEDED libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libm.so.6 NEEDED libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 NEEDED libpango-1.0.so.0 NEEDED libcairo.so.2 NEEDED libgobject-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libgmodule-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libdl.so.2 NEEDED libglib-2.0.so.0 NEEDED libpthread.so.0 NEEDED libc.so.6 I bet this thing builds using libtool, right ? libtool is known to be reordering gcc arguments, and with -Wl,--as-needed, that breaks everything, as it puts it at the end, making it useless. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: pidgin-privacy-please
So, after all these fun discussions, anyone interested? :) On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Stefan Ott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Richard Laager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 09:52 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Stefan Ott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package pidgin-privacy-please. The upstream website says this requires pidgin itself to be patched, has the Debian pidgin package integrated that patch? Last I checked, no. Here's the comment from the p-p-p upstream README [0]: Since version 2.3.0, pidgin includes the auth-signals patch, thus you'll only need to apply the patch for blocked-signals. If you choose not to apply that patch, pidgin-privacy-please won't be able to send auto-replies when a message has been blocked. While I'm not against the idea of those signals, sending an auto-reply when a message is blocked seems pretty counter-intuitive to me. In situations where you block all messages from people who are not on your contact list, an auto-reply telling them to request your authorization first is quite handy. cheers -- Stefan Ott http://www.ott.net/ Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition. -- Timothy Leary -- Stefan Ott http://www.ott.net/ Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition. -- Timothy Leary -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: scim-python: python bindings and input methods for scim
2008/6/22 LI Daobing (李道兵) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello, 2008/6/22 ZhengPeng Hou [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:43:18AM +0800, LI Daobing (李道兵) wrote: Hi, Would u mind tell me how to use it? after I built the packge with your source tarball(built with updated sid sbuild), and installed those binary packages, except the dbg one, re-login, I could not have it in skim. so is there anything wrong? or it can not work with skim? I does not test with skim, and it should does NOT work, please test with scim. skim is just a kde fronted of scim, I don't think there is anything specific to skim. if scim-python can not work with skim, then we'd firstly check what's wrong with scim-python. Cheers Zhengpeng Hou
Re: Some license issues (Was Re: RFS: unionfs-fuse)
Hello, On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Bernd Schubert wrote: Thanks for spotting that. Fixed now. I just uploaded another version. dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/u/unionfs-fuse/unionfs-fuse_0.20-4.dsc Uploaded. Thanks for your contribution to Debian. Please check http://buildd.debian.org/unionfs-fuse for further info. On a personal note. I have a version of pbuilder that uses unionfs to speed things up. So far that has not worked under vserver because unions cannot be created and removed in those. I am hoping to use unionfs-fuse to solve this issue. Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Some license issues (Was Re: RFS: unionfs-fuse)
Hello, On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Bernd Schubert wrote: PS: I didn't try to upload the package for several months, since I was all the time afraid of the formalisms like these. I hope that this response has been encouraging rather than otherwise. Well, yes and no ;) For this package all of this is still ok, since the package is rather small. Your help and efforts are great and very appreciated, of course! On the other we (q-leap) also have our own debian ofed packages and actually we also want to upload these. But compared to unionfs-fuse ofed-1.3 is huge (38 packages) and I'm really scared of the debian-upload process. Since I do mathematical research I compare this process to that. The most enjoyable part is to do the mathematics. Then there is the part of actually writing the paper and getting it ready for public consumption (with the interference^Wassistance of referees). However, the great thing is that once the second step is over, it becomes possible for other people to pick up the baton. Best wishes for your larger package set. Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Updating a package; ediquette and procedure questions
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:10:32 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: $ cp ggobi-2.1.7.tar.bz2 ggobi_2.1.7.orig.tar.bz2 Debian provides many facilities in the `devscripts' package. One of them is the uscan/uupdate programs. They need a special file in the source package, `debian/watch', TTBOMK uupdate doesn't need a watch file. 2. In Ubuntu, or Debian more generally, what happens when package maintainers don't stay up to date? It is a little tough to figure out who is responsible for a package sometimes, there is an OriginalMaintainer and other names in the changelog. OriginalMaintainer is an Ubuntu-specific field used AFAIK when there are changes to the package in Debian. If you email the person you think is in charge, and don't get an answer, what do you do? Please file bug reports to have a public log. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian gnu/linux user, admin developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `-NP: Bloodhound Gang: Nothing But Mammals signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: pidgin-privacy-please
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Stefan Ott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, after all these fun discussions, anyone interested? :) To be honest I'm trying to get rid of legacy clients like pidgin and xchat and switch to some telepathy based client. So, it is doubtful I'd sponsor this, unless pidgin magically becomes telepathy-based soon. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: bindfs
Hello, On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: Dear mentors, I'm looking for sponsor :) - - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bindfs/bindfs_1.6.1-3.dsc Here are some issues with this package. - many source files have *no* copyright or author identification. - there are spelling mistakes in debian/changelog. Please spellcheck the files in debian/ which are for users to read. - dpkg_shlibs gives the following warnings: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libdl.so.2 could be avoided if debian/bindfs/usr/bin/bindfs were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on librt.so.1 could be avoided if debian/bindfs/usr/bin/bindfs were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
