Re: adding icon to debian/

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi Mechtilde.

Am 04.10.20 um 12:03 schrieb Mechtilde:
> I want to add an icon for the file jverein desktop as a *.png. So I put
> this file into the debian/ directory.
>
> Now I get the message to put it into debian/source/include-binaries.
>
> After doing it I get the following massage:
> dpkg-source: error: unwanted binary file:
> debian/source/include-binaries/jameica-icon.png
debian/source/include-binaries is for *documenting* stuff which is to be
included.

It is a file and not a directory and doesn't actually include the files itself.

See e.g. libreoffice:

$ cat debian/source/include-binaries 
debian/templates/debian-presentation.otp
debian/templates/debian-presentation-background.xcf
desktop/test/deployment/update/platform/linux_sparc64.oxt
tarballs/798b2ffdc8bcfe7bca2cf92b62caf685-rhino1_5R5.zip
tarballs/35c94d2df8893241173de1d16b6034c0-swingExSrc.zip
tarballs/a7983f859eafb2677d7ff386a023bc40-xsltml_2.1.2.zip
tarballs/pdfium-4260.tar.bz2
tarballs/skia-m85-e684c6daef6bfb774a325a069eda1f76ca6ac26c.tar.xz
tarballs/dtoa-20180411.tgz

So just put it into debian/ (or even directly in the dir where it is supposed 
to be, saves you cp
and cleanup) and document it in include-binaries. Then it properly ends up in 
the .debian.tar.xz

Regards,

Rene

Re: error: 'char16_t' does not name a type; did you mean 'wchar_t'? (Was: Bug#899129: prime-phylo: FTBFS: cd obj-x86_64-linux-gnu && make -j8 -Oline returned exit code 2)

[Rene Engelhard]

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 12:20:05PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 09:05:48AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > cd /build/prime-phylo-1.0.11/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/src/cxx/libraries/prime 
> > && /usr/bin/c++  -DONLY_ONE_TIMESAMPLE -DPERTURBED_NODE 
> > -Dprime_phylo_EXPORTS 
> > -I/build/prime-phylo-1.0.11/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/src/cxx/libraries/prime 
> > -I/build/prime-phylo-1.0.11/src/cxx/libraries/prime 
> > -I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/openmpi/include/openmpi 
> > -I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/openmpi/include -I/usr/  
> > lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/openmpi/include/ompi/mpi/cxx -I/usr/include/libxml2 
> > -I/build/prime-phylo-1.0.11/src/cxx/libraries 
> > -I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/openmpi/include/openmpi/ompi/mpi/cxx 
> > -I/usr/lib/openmpi/include/openmpi/ompi/mpi/cxx  -g -O2 
> > -fdebug-prefix-map=/build/prime-phylo-1.0.11=. -fstack-protector-strong 
> > -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -
> > Wreorder -Wall -fexceptions -g -fPIC   -std=gnu++98 -o 
> > CMakeFiles/prime-phylo.dir/TreeInputOutput.cc.o -c 
> > /build/prime-phylo-1.0.11/src/cxx/libraries/prime/TreeInputOutput.cc
> 
> > /usr/include/unicode/umachine.h:347:13: error: 'char16_t' does not name a 
> > type; did you mean 'wchar_t'?
> ICU since 59 requires C++11 while your software uses -std=gnu++98.

Otherwise you can just define it. See e.g.

https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/diff/configure.ac?id=fabad007c60958f2ff87e8f636ff6a798ad1f963

+if test "$ICU_MAJOR" -ge "59"; then
+# As of ICU 59 it defaults to typedef char16_t UChar; which is
available
+# with -std=c++11 but not all external libraries can be built with
that,
+# for those use a bit-compatible typedef uint16_t UChar; see
+# icu/source/common/unicode/umachine.h
+ICU_UCHAR_TYPE="-DUCHAR_TYPE=uint16_t"
+else
+ICU_UCHAR_TYPE=""
+fi

(but yes, projects using -std=c++11 don't need it.)

Regards,

Rene

Bug#887369: RFS: libreoffice-style-papirus/20170228-1 [ITP]

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:01:32PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:20:10PM +0100, I wrote:
> > An icon theme might be more work than a cursor or window theme as whatever
> > needs the new icon would borrow from another theme and thus look out of
> > place.
> > 
> > > You can have another opinion. If not I will close the RFS and ITP in
> > > the next few days.
> > 
> > This is your time, no one has the right to tell you what to work on (at
> > least not in Debian).  You maintain a diverse set of packages, so a theme
> > that's not a part of your main area has a pretty low priority.
> 
> I just learned that Deepin's default theme is based on Papirus, which makes
> this package a matter of adjusting LibreOffice to match, rather than just a
> random unrelated theme.
> 
> I don't know if there's a reasonable way to make LibreOffice default to this
> theme when started from Deepin -- if not, it'd require a manual action from
> the user, which hardly anyone is going to do.

LO has it:
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/vcl/source/app/IconThemeSelector.cxx?h=libreoffice-6-0-0#n50

This would need to be amended to detect Deepin (there's also desktop
detection..)

But then still there's the point I raised: the libreoffice part was last
touched 1 year ago. In the meanwhile there have been icon changes here
and there in LO and 6.0.0 is around the corner. Who is going to support
this and eventual inconsistencies when icons are missing? (LOs -style
packages have fallback Depends: to the "last-resort-fallback" tango,
but...)

Regards,

Rene

Bug#883098: RFS: libreoffice-texmaths/0.43-1 [ITP]

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:49:52AM -0600, kkremit...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 19:20 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:05:43AM -0600, kkremit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > * Package name: libreoffice-texmaths
> > >   Version : 0.43-1
> > >   Upstream Author : Roland Baudin <rolan...@free.fr>
> > > * URL : htthttp://roland65.free.fr/texmaths/
> > > * License : GPL2
> > >   Section : tex
> > > 
> > > It builds those binary packages:
> > > 
> > >   libreoffice-texmaths - TexMaths is a LaTeX equation editor for
> > > LibreOffice
> > 
> > Looks good basically. What I saw, though is:
> > 
> > Depends: libreoffice-common, libreoffice-core (>= 3.3.0~),
> > libreoffice-writer, texlive, dvipng, ${misc:Depends}
> > 
> > - common and -core are superfluous (writer would depend on them
> > anyway)
> >   and 3.3.0 is there since the beginning. Even wheezy has 3.5.4
> > - README says
> > " - LibreOffice Draw (version 4 or later)
> > "
> >   so you probably want to a) add -draw b) make it >= 4.0 :-)
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Rene
> 
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. I tested the dependencies some more and
> uploaded libreoffice-texmaths-0.43-2 with the changes. To summarize:
> 
> Depends: libreoffice-draw (>= 4.0), texlive, ${misc:Depends}
> Enhances: libreoffice-writer, libreoffice-impress, libreoffice-draw

Thanks, uploaded.

No idea what's customary in these RFS bugs. Are you going to close it?
:)

Regards,

Rene

Bug#883098: RFS: libreoffice-texmaths/0.43-1 [ITP]

[Rene Engelhard]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:05:43AM -0600, kkremit...@gmail.com wrote:
> * Package name: libreoffice-texmaths
>   Version : 0.43-1
>   Upstream Author : Roland Baudin 
> * URL : htthttp://roland65.free.fr/texmaths/
> * License : GPL2
>   Section : tex
> 
> It builds those binary packages:
> 
>   libreoffice-texmaths - TexMaths is a LaTeX equation editor for
> LibreOffice

Looks good basically. What I saw, though is:

Depends: libreoffice-common, libreoffice-core (>= 3.3.0~),
libreoffice-writer, texlive, dvipng, ${misc:Depends}

- common and -core are superfluous (writer would depend on them anyway)
  and 3.3.0 is there since the beginning. Even wheezy has 3.5.4
- README says
" - LibreOffice Draw (version 4 or later)
"
  so you probably want to a) add -draw b) make it >= 4.0 :-)

Regards,

Rene

Re: Droping v5 extension to library names

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:14:35PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> when libraries were build with gcc 5 'v5' was added to the soversion
> inside the library name.  Should this extension be kept even if there is
> a new soversion.  For instance for the package libbpp-core2v5 which has
> now soversion=3.  Should the new package be named
> 
> libbpp-core3v5
> or
> libbpp-core3
> 
> ?

You can drop it.[1]

Regards,

Rene

[1] gcc 7 will change stuff AGAIN. No idea about what exactly is affected, but
I've already seen some cases. No idea about the suffix to-be-used then 
either.
Will probably be some time to come and hopefully with proper announcement 
etc.

Bug#827715: RFS: muttprint/0.73-5.2 [NMU, RC] -- Pretty printing of mails

[Rene Engelhard]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:01:24PM +0900, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for an NMU of muttprint, fixing a stretch RC
> bug (older than 7 days and no maintainer activity).  I use muttprint

That is not correct. It is only RC since *2* days.

"Severity set to 'serious' from 'important' Request was from Niels Thykier 
 to cont...@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 18 Jun 2016 17:04:31 GMT) 
Full text and rfc822 format available."

Regards,

Rene

Re: Endianess testing?

[Rene Engelhard]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> how do I test the endianess of a system for the inclusion in
> debian/rules?
> 
> lscpu | fgrep -q "Little Endian"
> 
> comes in my mind; but is this safe? qemu-userland would probably report
> something wrong here?

You don't need to? dpkg knows.

amd64:

$ dpkg-architecture | grep ENDIAN
DEB_BUILD_ARCH_ENDIAN=little
DEB_HOST_ARCH_ENDIAN=little
DEB_TARGET_ARCH_ENDIAN=little

it's exported via /usr/share/dpkg/architecture.mk, too, you can do something 
like

include /usr/share/dpkg/architecture.mk
[...]
ifeq "$(DEB_HOST_ARCH_ENDIAN)" "big"
  
endif

Same with little, obviously.

Regards,

Rene

Re: tophat: Help needed with boost

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 03:31:21PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
 On 2014-03-18 14:19, Andreas Tille wrote:
  segment_juncs.o: In function `boost::thread::get_id() const':
  /usr/include/boost/thread/detail/thread.hpp:730: undefined reference to 
  `boost::thread::native_handle()'
  segment_juncs.o: In function `boost::thread::join()':
  /usr/include/boost/thread/detail/thread.hpp:756: undefined reference to 
  `boost::thread::join_noexcept()'
  segment_juncs.o: In function `~thread':
  ...
 
 Looking the command that generates this output, you can see that it's
 missing -lboost_thread and -lboost_system:

Indeed.

 The generated Makefiles have empty BOOST_THREAD_LIB and BOOST_SYSTEM_LIB
 variables. A bit of investigating reveals that it's the location of the
 boost libraries that seems to be the problem, because adding the

Or simply not having them in the Makefile.am...

 following to debian/rules seems to fix the issue:
 
 override_dh_auto_configure:
   dh_auto_configure -- \
   --with-boost-libdir=/usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)
 
 I'm not entirely sure that's the correct solution to the problem,
 though. Perhaps someone with more Multiarch + autotools experience can
 enlighten us.

This only helps in the lib is not found case. Not in the BOOST_THREAD_LIB
is empty case, afaik

But that should be done anyways for safety. The libs are there and not in
/usr/lib and helping boost detection isn't bad.

I had both cases already..

Regards,

Rene


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140318144810.gb24...@rene-engelhard.de

Re: RFS: wavemon (already in Debian)

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:53:50AM -0800, Nicholas Breen wrote:
 On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:46:34PM +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote:
  I am looking for a sponsor for my package wavemon.
  
   * Package name: wavemon
 Version : 0.7.3-1
 
 I'd certainly like to see an updated wavemon package in the archive.  However,
 Rene Englehard is still listed as the current maintainer and last uploader, 
 and
 it doesn't seem to be orphaned or RFAed.  Have you talked with him about 
 taking
 over the package, or possibly sponsoring your uploads?

Yes we talked about it -  he can have it :)

No time for sponsoring, though...

Regards,

Rene


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120223213146.gd17...@rene-engelhard.de

Re: RFS: mozvoikko - Finnish spell-checker extension for Iceweasel and Icedove

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Heikki Mäntysaari wrote:
 mozvoikko  - Finnish spell-checker extensions for Iceweasel and Icedove
 mozvoikko-iceweasel - Finnish spell-checker extension for Iceweasel

If at all (see also below) iceweasel-mozvoikko.

 Package mozvoikko installs the spell-checker extension and mozvoikko-iceweasel
 enables it in iceweasel. mozvoikko-icedove will do this with icedove
 in the future. I'm
 not absolutely sure that this is the right way to package a software
 like this, so I'm also
 looking for comments about my packaging.

See above.

And your description of mozvoikko implies that it already contains the
extension for Iceweasel (and worse, for Icedove). People might just
install it instead of iceweasel-mozvoikko.

Have you considered just putting the lib in the two packages and just
don't build mozvoikko? (They have separate extension dirs anyway?)

Regards,

Rene


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: openoffice.org-voikko (was: oo2-voikko)

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Am Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 08:22 schrieben Sie:
 I did the change to 1.1-2 yesterday evening. I soon got a few notices that 
 multiple spellcheckers work in OOo just fine. What do you think? Of course 

Right.

 it's not maybe that wise to use more than one spellchecker for a language, 
 but apparently it's entirely possible.

Right. But soikko/voikko are sufficiently similar (and soikko is unmaintained 
upstream afaik
and non-free) so that it doesn't really make sense to install both soikko and 
voikko?
[ and soikko could be removed if voikko is in the archive if no one objects ]

I didn't say you should conflict against myspell-fi or so but soikko/voikko 
conflicts seem sensible...

Regards,

Rene

-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73

Re: RFS: openoffice.org-voikko (was: oo2-voikko)

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Am Montag, 25. September 2006 18:40 schrieb Timo Jyrinki:
 URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/openoffice.org-voikko
 
 I uploaded this packages despite the remaining problems, so that there'd 
 be the newest version at mentors.debian.net anyway. Hopefully the first 
 3-4 packages can go in first, and then we'll see if openoffice.org-voikko 
 can be fixed as well.

I guess you want to conflict against openoffice.org-soikko?

Regards,

Rene

-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73

Re: use of xvfb-run in pbuilder builds

[Rene Engelhard]

Am Montag, 3. Juli 2006 23:33 schrieb Justin Pryzby:
 On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:43:50PM -0500, Carlo Segre wrote:
 
  I am trying to use xvfb-run to permit pbuilder to build some packages 
  which need to connect to X.
 If you're aiming to get the package uploaded, this isn't allowed.  You
 can't assume an X11 environment, or a network connection, or any such
 thing.

That's exactly why you use xvfb-run in this case because it provides a virtual 
one.

No normal X required.

This *is* allowed per policy; I don't see where it is not and for that matter I 
know some
packages which need(ed) that...

Regards,

Rene
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73

Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Vedran Fura? wrote:
 Rene Engelhard wrote:
  After this is fixed (and maybe the version changed) I'll sponsor it.
 
 Uploaded to mentors:
 http://mentors-test.workaround.org/debian/pool/main/m/myspell-hr/

Uploaded.

Regards,

Rene


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Vedran Fura? wrote:
 The upstream doesn't provide any version information so there shouldn't be
   any problem if I fake new upstream releases: 1.0-1 - 1.1-1 - 1.2-1 .

Can't you use dates then? Like MMDD-a?

Anyway, I just saw a bug testing this for upload again...

You register the hyphenation one for hyph_hr_HR.dic but what's in dicts/
is actually hyph_hr.dic... So OOo of course doesn't show/recognize it.

After this is fixed (and maybe the version changed) I'll sponsor it.

Regards,

Rene


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Vedran Fura? wrote:
 % cat debian/openoffice.org-hyphenation-hr.dictlistinfo
 HYPH hr HR hyph_hr_HR
 
 also:
 
 % cat debian/myspell-hr.dictlistinfo
 DICT hr HR hr_HR

Yes, OK... If I oversaw the first, sorry.

  irrelevant. not used by any myspell-using app.
 
 I know, but you mentioned that directory.

Oops, sorry, typo.

  unstable first, so you basically develop for unstable). That it works
  without hr.* for you is nice but it doesn't do here.
 
 I use sid with tbird 1.5.0.2-3 too. Note that even myspell-en doesn't
 install any symlinks in /usr/share/dict. Did you mean
 /usr/share/myspell/dicts/ maybe?

Yes.

  Btw, why you don't like mentors.d.n? I'll try to find some http/ftp server.
  
  Because for example with the upload stuff you are forced to increment the 
  version
  number needlessly. I forgot the other reasons I had a loong time ago to
  not like it; maybe that got fixed, don't remember
 
 But you don't need to upload anything, just download. :-)


Of course I need to. I need to download it to build and upload it.
And I didn't mean upload stuff from me but from you. You need to do a
-2, -3 etc for any minor change (as in the normal archive, too, but this
is packages not in the archive yet so they should be -1 in most cases)

Regards,

Rene


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Vedran Fura? wrote:
 I just copied debian/rules and control from myspell-en or something. Could

openoffice.org-dictionaries, yes.
(openoffice.org-dictionaries is  the source package for
myspell-en-us/myspell-en-gb)

 you tell me what exactly should I remove from debian/rules? But, yes, it
 works.

perefarbly, just the loops and the whole unneeded stuff and just
install your files. but minor point as long as it works

  Just oversaw something:
 
  - Where is the dictionary.lst entry for openoffice.org-hyhenation-hr?
 
 % grep hyp /usr/share/myspell/dicts/dictionary.lst
 HYPH hr HR hyph_hr_HR

I didn't see any info file for it in the tree... Maybe I oversaw it..
Note the hyph info should be in openoffice.org-hyphenation-hr and not in
myspell-hr

  Third time is a charm...
  
  - please add a hr.dic - hr_HR.dic and hr.aff - hr_HR.aff symlink in
/usr/share/dicts so that Mozilla actually shows Croatian in the
dropdown list.
 
 Well, I don't have mozilla installed, only tbird and I have Croatian (and
 english) in the dropdown list without symlinks in /usr/share/dict:
 
 % ls -l /usr/share/dict
 lrwxrwxrwx 1 rootroot   30 2006-06-11 03:09 words -
 /etc/dictionaries-common/words

irrelevant. not used by any myspell-using app.

 but:
 
 % ls -l /usr/share/myspell/dicts/
 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  113037 2006-04-26 03:32 DicOOo.sxw
 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  30 2006-05-04 02:53 dictionary.lst -
 /etc/openoffice/dictionary.lst
 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root   27828 2006-03-06 23:44 en_GB.aff
 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   9 2006-03-09 03:16 en-GB.aff - en_GB.aff
 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  527490 2006-03-06 23:44 en_GB.dic
 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   9 2006-03-09 03:16 en-GB.dic - en_GB.dic
 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root3045 2006-03-06 23:44 en_US.aff
 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   9 2006-03-09 03:16 en-US.aff - en_US.aff
 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  696131 2006-03-06 23:44 en_US.dic
 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   9 2006-03-09 03:16 en-US.dic - en_US.dic
 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root1196 2006-05-04 02:24 hr_HR.aff
 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   9 2006-05-04 02:27 hr-HR.aff - hr_HR.aff
 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2353416 2006-05-04 02:24 hr_HR.dic
 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   9 2006-05-04 02:27 hr-HR.dic - hr_HR.dic
 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root7098 2006-05-04 02:24 hyph_hr.dic

Doesn't work here. Thunderbird on sid (1.5.0.2-3). (sarge doesn't count; you 
develop
for the next release which is etch and the packages for that go to
unstable first, so you basically develop for unstable). That it works
without hr.* for you is nice but it doesn't do here.

 Btw, why you don't like mentors.d.n? I'll try to find some http/ftp server.

Because for example with the upload stuff you are forced to increment the 
version
number needlessly. I forgot the other reasons I had a loong time ago to
not like it; maybe that got fixed, don't remember

Regards,

Rene


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr

[Rene Engelhard]

Rene Engelhard wrote:
 Rene Engelhard wrote:
  - Please make everything -1 since the whole thing is your * Initial
release
  - Close the ITP (see above)
  - up-to-date standards-version is 3.7.2
  - You don't really need the dh_listpackages and find infrastructure
which just was done by me for openoffice.org-dictionaries to support
multiple dicts/thesauri/hyph stuff easily. It's not needed for
myspell-hr. OTOH, it also doesn't hurt as long as it works
  - openoffice.org2 is obsolete and not anywhere anymore. No need to mention 
  that.
  - please depend on at least openoffice.org (= 1.0.3) | 
  openoffice.org-writer for
then hyphenation stuff, openoffice.org is just a dummy package
depending on all modules and people might just want to install
-writer, and not the others.
(Maybe -impress should be added, too)
 
 Just oversaw something:
 
 - Where is the dictionary.lst entry for openoffice.org-hyhenation-hr?

Third time is a charm...

- please add a hr.dic - hr_HR.dic and hr.aff - hr_HR.aff symlink in
  /usr/share/dicts so that Mozilla actually shows Croatian in the
  dropdown list.

Regards,
  
Rene


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Eddy Petrisor wrote:
  - myspell-hr (Croatian dictionary for myspell)
  
  Like bfilter, but this one is lintian/linda clean.
  
  When I find a sponsor I will add a Initial upload to debian...closes ITP
  bug number entry to debian/changelog.
 
 This should be done beforehand so you can speedup the process and so that 
 nobody else starts working on something is already done.

Exactly.

Vedran: In case no one sponsored yet, please prepare a ready-to-upload package
and make it somewhere available for me to fetch and look at it (I'd sponsor).
Note that somewhere *excludes* mentors.debian.net.

Regards,

Rene


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Rene Engelhard wrote:
 Eddy Petrisor wrote:
   - myspell-hr (Croatian dictionary for myspell)
   
   Like bfilter, but this one is lintian/linda clean.
   
   When I find a sponsor I will add a Initial upload to debian...closes ITP
   bug number entry to debian/changelog.
  
  This should be done beforehand so you can speedup the process and so that 
  nobody else starts working on something is already done.
 
 Exactly.
 
 Vedran: In case no one sponsored yet, please prepare a ready-to-upload package
 and make it somewhere available for me to fetch and look at it (I'd sponsor).
 Note that somewhere *excludes* mentors.debian.net.

I just looked anyway:

Please:

- - Please make everything -1 since the whole thing is your * Initial
  release
- - Close the ITP (see above)
- - up-to-date standards-version is 3.7.2
- - You don't really need the dh_listpackages and find infrastructure
  which just was done by me for openoffice.org-dictionaries to support
  multiple dicts/thesauri/hyph stuff easily. It's not needed for
  myspell-hr. OTOH, it also doesn't hurt as long as it works
- - openoffice.org2 is obsolete and not anywhere anymore. No need to mention 
that.
- - please depend on at least openoffice.org (= 1.0.3) | openoffice.org-writer 
for
  then hyphenation stuff, openoffice.org is just a dummy package
  depending on all modules and people might just want to install
  -writer, and not the others.
  (Maybe -impress should be added, too)

Regards,

Rene
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEjvG0+FmQsCSK63MRAtjrAJ4lRyemT40y8LpHtSpo+Zm9QZvLdACfeNyr
kYD5fpIGejEneoeYxk2ttkg=
=/OE2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Rene Engelhard wrote:
 - Please make everything -1 since the whole thing is your * Initial
   release
 - Close the ITP (see above)
 - up-to-date standards-version is 3.7.2
 - You don't really need the dh_listpackages and find infrastructure
   which just was done by me for openoffice.org-dictionaries to support
   multiple dicts/thesauri/hyph stuff easily. It's not needed for
   myspell-hr. OTOH, it also doesn't hurt as long as it works
 - openoffice.org2 is obsolete and not anywhere anymore. No need to mention 
 that.
 - please depend on at least openoffice.org (= 1.0.3) | openoffice.org-writer 
 for
   then hyphenation stuff, openoffice.org is just a dummy package
   depending on all modules and people might just want to install
   -writer, and not the others.
   (Maybe -impress should be added, too)

Just oversaw something:

- - Where is the dictionary.lst entry for openoffice.org-hyhenation-hr?
 
Regards,
 
Rene
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEjvJL+FmQsCSK63MRAkhJAJkBV9Yp/Sg/FhHUU0kr6pnQAHAhcACfZ9Xm
IQGU0qhU1YYtLwh74b6iqu4=
=NP9Z
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Q on fixed-in-experimental

[Rene Engelhard]

Colin Watson wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 02:18:15AM +0200, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
  On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 00:14 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
   When a bug is tagged fixed-in-experimental, does that bug number still
   have to appear in debian/changelog for the next upload to unstable or
   will the BTS be updated when the package in experimental is replaced?
   It has to appear in changelog.
  
   I know how to filter the BTS to show bugs with these tags, just
   wondering if it's automated.
   Can't be automated. An automatic system can't figure out if the fix is
  still in the package or maybe dropped from the unstable upload due to
  cause other problems.
 
 To clarify, it still has to appear in debian/changelog, but it doesn't
 have to be in the most recent version; leaving it in the version where
 you fixed the problem is good enough.

 together with -v to dpkg-buildpackage / debuild so the bugs actually
get into the Closes: line of the .changes so they actually get closed.

Regards,

Rene


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Sponsor wanted - myspell-cz, libnova more..

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Am Montag, 7. November 2005 12:54 schrieb Petr Kubanek:
 I packed myspell-cz, so one will be able to get Czech spelling in
   ^^
 Debian, which will work with OpenOffice and Mozilla. It's there:

 http://lascaux.asu.cas.cz/~petr/myspell-cs-cz_20051101-1.tar.gz
  ^

Please package it non-native. But I can look what you have done so far 
tonight.. BTW; why -cs-cz and not just -cs? If that's only the source pkg 
name and the binary package is names -cz this is wrong. specify the language 
code, not the country code (here it should be myspell-cs). See the 
dictionaries-common policy.

 I would like to as if somebody can sponsor this package. It's based on

I could.
 myspell-sk, and as I'm familiar with Debian packaging, I hope I make
 debs right. Althought Czech isn't world language, there are 10^7 (maybe
 more) potential users of that package, so I hope that it's worth the
 effort.

I think it is. But I still think building it from ispell-czech (see #246129 
and #237973) makes more sense because it then gets updates automatically when 
the ispell stuff changes; most of the myspell-* packages in Debian are done 
so.

But if Petr doesn't want that (he didn't reply to any of those two merged bugs 
for over 1.5 years...). Cc'ing him, though

Regards,

Rene

P.S.: It would be better to start *one* thread for *one* package...
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73

Fwd: Re: Sponsor wanted - myspell-cz, libnova more..

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi Petr,

I typoed your e-mail adress. Can you reply on-list (and probably also to the 
bugreports) what you intend to do and whether you intend to build myspell-cs 
from ispell-czech? (which would be the best solution..)

Regards,

Rene

--  Weitergeleitete Nachricht  --

Subject: Re: Sponsor wanted - myspell-cz, libnova  more..
Date: Montag, 7. November 2005 17:27
From: Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Cc: Petr Kubanek [EMAIL PROTECTED], Petr Cech [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hi,

Am Montag, 7. November 2005 12:54 schrieb Petr Kubanek:
 I packed myspell-cz, so one will be able to get Czech spelling in

   ^^

 Debian, which will work with OpenOffice and Mozilla. It's there:

 http://lascaux.asu.cas.cz/~petr/myspell-cs-cz_20051101-1.tar.gz

  ^

Please package it non-native. But I can look what you have done so far
tonight.. BTW; why -cs-cz and not just -cs? If that's only the source pkg
name and the binary package is names -cz this is wrong. specify the language
code, not the country code (here it should be myspell-cs). See the
dictionaries-common policy.

 I would like to as if somebody can sponsor this package. It's based on

I could.

 myspell-sk, and as I'm familiar with Debian packaging, I hope I make
 debs right. Althought Czech isn't world language, there are 10^7 (maybe
 more) potential users of that package, so I hope that it's worth the
 effort.

I think it is. But I still think building it from ispell-czech (see #246129
and #237973) makes more sense because it then gets updates automatically when
the ispell stuff changes; most of the myspell-* packages in Debian are done
so.

But if Petr doesn't want that (he didn't reply to any of those two merged
 bugs for over 1.5 years...). Cc'ing him, though

Regards,

Rene

P.S.: It would be better to start *one* thread for *one* package...
--
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer

 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/

 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73

---

-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73

Re: RFS: jaxml -- XML document generation for Python

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Dmitri Alenitchev wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:53:22PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote
   Jaxml is a python module that defines a class XML_document, which allows 
   easy and trouble-free generation of XML documents.
  
  If it's a python module, naming it jaxp violates the python policy. Go
  read it ;)
 
 The package is already in Debian and named `jaxml'.

and? What prevents you from fixing errors the previous maintainer did?

Regards,

Rene
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDB7g7+FmQsCSK63MRAqqEAJ94SQmn4AW5nuHTeI/Atz12KcZjYgCeLPcj
6Er9rnY4AtOiD/DUdZjdDwg=
=sYSM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFS: jaxml -- XML document generation for Python

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Dmitri Alenitchev wrote:
 Jaxml is a python module that defines a class XML_document, which allows 
 easy and trouble-free generation of XML documents.

If it's a python module, naming it jaxp violates the python policy. Go
read it ;)

Regards,

Rene


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: pbuilder fails when looking for X / XOpenDisplay [solved]

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Kevin Coyner wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 06:21:22PM +0200, Lo???c Minier wrote..
  
   I suggest you try understanding what the requirements are to
   build your package, this is usually achieved by reading the
   upstream INSTALL file or better: the configure.ac/in.  You can
   then derive the needed build-deps.
 
 I was missing xlibs-dev in the Source/Build-Depends part of my
 control file.

Use what you really need. It was already mentioned in this thread
(libx11-dev). Don't use xlibs-dev, it's superfluous and a empty
dummy package anyway...

Grüße/Regards,

Rene
-- 
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73




signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Cant build a simple package.

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Rakotomandimby (R12y) Mihamina wrote:
 #!/usr/bin/make -f
 
 export DH_VERBOSE=1
 
 configure:
 
 build:
 
 clean:
 
 install:
 
 dh_testdir
 cp minimalist.pl $(CURDIR)/debian/minimalist
 
 binary-indep:
 
 binary-arch:
 
 dh_builddeb
 
 binary: binary-indep binary-arch
 
 .PHONY: build clean binary-indep binary-arch binary install

This is broken. debian/rules is a makefile.

dpkg-buildpackage just calls binary. so you have to add depends to your
makefile targets

And you want to add the needed dh_* commands before dh_builddep. They
*are* needed. You also want to move those to binary-indep since you have
a Architecture: all package (if you have any in control. fix it).

HTH.

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Cant build a simple package.

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Rakotomandimby (R12y) Mihamina wrote:
 On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 13:42 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
 
http://www.ibiblio.org/...
 
 Yes! I had to 'mkdir ./debian/DEBIAN' manually. :-)
 Anyway, manually creating .debian/DEBIAN is not clearly mentionned in
 tha Debian new Maintainer guide.

Because that's something you should not do. See my reply to your initial
post..

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Simple Debian Package Creation?

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Joey Hess wrote:
 Rene Engelhard wrote:
   any debian rules.
  
  the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken.
 
 No, there is no convention and it doesn't matter at all what you name
 the package's source directory. This has been completly unnecessary for
 years.

Not for dh_make. dh_make relies on that for filling out the template..
And the convention I meant was for normal source tar.gzs...

  And: You *could* use a random directory name later after dh_install 
  (dh_install needs to get the info it puts into the template from somehwre). 
 
 You seem to be confused about what dh_install is.

Yes, typo. I of course meant dh_make.

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Simple Debian Package Creation?

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Joey Hess wrote:
 Rene Engelhard wrote:
   any debian rules.
  
  the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken.
 
 No, there is no convention and it doesn't matter at all what you name
 the package's source directory. This has been completly unnecessary for
 years.

Not for dh_make. dh_make relies on that for filling out the template..
And the convention I meant was for normal source tar.gzs...

  And: You *could* use a random directory name later after dh_install 
  (dh_install needs to get the info it puts into the template from somehwre). 
 
 You seem to be confused about what dh_install is.

Yes, typo. I of course meant dh_make.

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  

Re: Simple Debian Package Creation?

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

I know both the deb (Debian developer) and the rpm (at work) side..

Am Mittwoch, 3. November 2004 17:47 schrieb Zach Garner:
 First:
   1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
 scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.

You don't need to use them... mostly what you need is just dh_* from 
debhelper. Each one has its own purpose. Many people don't need them all...

   2. The number of files that I have to create within the /debian
 directory is difficult to deal with, and having to create the /debian
 directory within my application directory and being forced to name my
 application directory according to debian rules is very irritating.

You don't need to do that manally. dh_make gives you a template. You need to 
adjust that a bit, though, for your needs...

   3. Most of the package creation scripts (I'm refering explicitly to
 dh_make which is supposed to be the proper way of creating a package, as
 discussed in the New Maintainer's Guide) expect that you are building a
 traditional unix application, that's written in C, has ./configure and a
 Makefile. All we are doing in most of our packages is installing some
 files. Why can't that be simple?

Because most stuff *is* ./configure; make; make install

If you have a stuff which is not that way and just needs putting files around, 
just do it. No one tells you you have to stick exactly with dh_makes 
template. you just can use cp, install or whatever to install the files into 
the proper debian/foo/usr/... directories...

 I feel that RPM creation is better here. One command ('rpmbuild') is
 used. One file, the package.spec file, is needed with different
 sections for each part. I can keep my rpm packaging files any where I
 want it, and I don't have to have my application directory conform to

You can have that with debian/* too. Just stick them somewhere and copy it 
into your pristine source if needed. No one tells you that debian/ has to be 
in your source tarball, it even is discouraged...

 any debian rules.

the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken. I 
don't see anyhow how it is bad to name a directory foo-version.

And: You *could* use a random directory name later after dh_install 
(dh_install needs to get the info it puts into the template from somehwre). 
YOu'll get warnings and your poackage probably won't be Debian policy 
compliant (.dsc/.diff.gz/.orig.tar.gz) but it would work.

dh_make is a tool for people building debs mainly for the dist. There are some 
policies which *are* to follow...


 Why can't debian package building be as simple as 'dpkg-create
 foo.spec'?

That's what dh_make does. Packaging is more than just using a template...

 Second, why can't I create packages with standard unix commands? Why
 can't I say something like:
   $ tar cvzf data.tgz myapplication/*
   $ tar czvf control.tgz control
   $ tar czvf mypackage-0.1.deb data.tgz control.tgz

man ar, man tar, man deb

you *could* do that manually, read man deb for the exact structure - as deb 
ist just an ar archive with two tar archives and one file. But it is *far* 
easier to get a package right with the normal way...

 My main complaint here, is that we really want to be able to build the
 debian packages from any developer workstation. Since we don't impose
 operating system requirements on developers, we can't expect debian to
 be on all workstations.

You can't do that with rpm either. You need rpm installed anyhow.
Same with debian.

Regards,

Rene
-- 
 .''`.  Ren Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73

Re: Simple Debian Package Creation?

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

I know both the deb (Debian developer) and the rpm (at work) side..

Am Mittwoch, 3. November 2004 17:47 schrieb Zach Garner:
 First:
   1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
 scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.

You don't need to use them... mostly what you need is just dh_* from 
debhelper. Each one has its own purpose. Many people don't need them all...

   2. The number of files that I have to create within the /debian
 directory is difficult to deal with, and having to create the /debian
 directory within my application directory and being forced to name my
 application directory according to debian rules is very irritating.

You don't need to do that manally. dh_make gives you a template. You need to 
adjust that a bit, though, for your needs...

   3. Most of the package creation scripts (I'm refering explicitly to
 dh_make which is supposed to be the proper way of creating a package, as
 discussed in the New Maintainer's Guide) expect that you are building a
 traditional unix application, that's written in C, has ./configure and a
 Makefile. All we are doing in most of our packages is installing some
 files. Why can't that be simple?

Because most stuff *is* ./configure; make; make install

If you have a stuff which is not that way and just needs putting files around, 
just do it. No one tells you you have to stick exactly with dh_makes 
template. you just can use cp, install or whatever to install the files into 
the proper debian/foo/usr/... directories...

 I feel that RPM creation is better here. One command ('rpmbuild') is
 used. One file, the package.spec file, is needed with different
 sections for each part. I can keep my rpm packaging files any where I
 want it, and I don't have to have my application directory conform to

You can have that with debian/* too. Just stick them somewhere and copy it 
into your pristine source if needed. No one tells you that debian/ has to be 
in your source tarball, it even is discouraged...

 any debian rules.

the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken. I 
don't see anyhow how it is bad to name a directory foo-version.

And: You *could* use a random directory name later after dh_install 
(dh_install needs to get the info it puts into the template from somehwre). 
YOu'll get warnings and your poackage probably won't be Debian policy 
compliant (.dsc/.diff.gz/.orig.tar.gz) but it would work.

dh_make is a tool for people building debs mainly for the dist. There are some 
policies which *are* to follow...


 Why can't debian package building be as simple as 'dpkg-create
 foo.spec'?

That's what dh_make does. Packaging is more than just using a template...

 Second, why can't I create packages with standard unix commands? Why
 can't I say something like:
   $ tar cvzf data.tgz myapplication/*
   $ tar czvf control.tgz control
   $ tar czvf mypackage-0.1.deb data.tgz control.tgz

man ar, man tar, man deb

you *could* do that manually, read man deb for the exact structure - as deb 
ist just an ar archive with two tar archives and one file. But it is *far* 
easier to get a package right with the normal way...

 My main complaint here, is that we really want to be able to build the
 debian packages from any developer workstation. Since we don't impose
 operating system requirements on developers, we can't expect debian to
 be on all workstations.

You can't do that with rpm either. You need rpm installed anyhow.
Same with debian.

Regards,

Rene
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73

Re: RFS: astyle (previously orphaned)

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Margarita Manterola wrote:
 I've placed the new package at the same location.  Thanks for your time.

Uploaded.

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: astyle (previously orphaned)

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Margarita Manterola wrote:
 I'm making a new package for astyle, which has been orphaned in
 August.  I need a sponsor to upload it.
 
 In the package I've made, I've updated the files so that they comply
 with the new policies, and I've also taken care of some fixable bugs
 (3 out of 7).
 
[...]
 The new package (source and binary) can be found at:
 http://www.gnuservers.com.ar/~marga/debian/astyle/
 
 Please do tell me what you think of it.

You moved to using dpatch; please mention that in the changelog.

Otherwise it looks OK although probably using patch-stamp instead of patch is
better (I vaguely remember something not working with just patch, I am using
patch-stamp without problems).

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: astyle (previously orphaned)

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Margarita Manterola wrote:
 I've placed the new package at the same location.  Thanks for your time.

Uploaded.

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Sponsor for openoffice.org-help-pl

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Marcin Orlowski wrote:
 I've packaged polish help for openoffice.org. The package
 openoffice.org-help-pl is now on mentors and I'm recently
 looking for sponsor. Anyone?

Put it somewhere web-accssible (no, I don't mean mentors.debian.net) and
I'll look...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Sponsor for openoffice.org-help-pl

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Marcin Orlowski wrote:
 I've packaged polish help for openoffice.org. The package
 openoffice.org-help-pl is now on mentors and I'm recently
 looking for sponsor. Anyone?

Put it somewhere web-accssible (no, I don't mean mentors.debian.net) and
I'll look...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: problem with debug libraries

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

martin f krafft wrote:
[ snip ]
 I am using dh_strip --keep-debug to keep these binaries purposely in
 place. Thus, I should probably override the last two errors.
 However, I am unsure about the first six lines. What do they mean?
 What am I doing wrong? Why does stripping fixes that? The libraries

/usr/lib/debug/* should go into a -dbg package. Linda then does not
complain. The debug stuff should not be in the normal package.

There is no problem with the /usr/lib/debug/* stuff itself; you just
should put that into a -dbg package.

You probably did something wrong with dh_strip --dbg-package

Assuming you have libfoo0 you add a new section about libfoo0-dbg and
specify

dh_strip --dbg-package libfoo0

which is supposed to install the stuff into libfoo0-dbg.

Grüße/Regards,

René
- -- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBCuHi+FmQsCSK63MRAsG7AKCDd1BeilkzwaAUauvMlW2fXh7g4QCfVjWk
FB4Mf/OeTQRo6tHisIV97RE=
=T8p8
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: problem with debug libraries

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

martin f krafft wrote:
[ snip ]
 I am using dh_strip --keep-debug to keep these binaries purposely in
 place. Thus, I should probably override the last two errors.
 However, I am unsure about the first six lines. What do they mean?
 What am I doing wrong? Why does stripping fixes that? The libraries

/usr/lib/debug/* should go into a -dbg package. Linda then does not
complain. The debug stuff should not be in the normal package.

There is no problem with the /usr/lib/debug/* stuff itself; you just
should put that into a -dbg package.

You probably did something wrong with dh_strip --dbg-package

Assuming you have libfoo0 you add a new section about libfoo0-dbg and
specify

dh_strip --dbg-package libfoo0

which is supposed to install the stuff into libfoo0-dbg.

Gre/Regards,

Ren
- -- 
 .''`.  Ren Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBCuHi+FmQsCSK63MRAsG7AKCDd1BeilkzwaAUauvMlW2fXh7g4QCfVjWk
FB4Mf/OeTQRo6tHisIV97RE=
=T8p8
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Removing Other Packages' Conflicting Files

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I am packaging a package - A - which conflicts with only some files in 
 another package - B - (A depends on the rest of B's files). If A also 
 contained the files in B with which it conflicts, I think I would tag A 
 Replaces: B and be done; but A doesn't contain these files, it simply 
 conflicts with them, so they must be removed.
 
 How do I stop files from B from being installed? If I simply put rm 
 files into A's postinst script, the files could be reinstalled the 
 next time B is upgraded.

first: try to get a better solution

second: if you are *sure* this is ok and won't break stuff: dpkg-divert,
see policy...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Removing Other Packages' Conflicting Files

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I am packaging a package - A - which conflicts with only some files in 
 another package - B - (A depends on the rest of B's files). If A also 
 contained the files in B with which it conflicts, I think I would tag A 
 Replaces: B and be done; but A doesn't contain these files, it simply 
 conflicts with them, so they must be removed.
 
 How do I stop files from B from being installed? If I simply put rm 
 files into A's postinst script, the files could be reinstalled the 
 next time B is upgraded.

first: try to get a better solution

second: if you are *sure* this is ok and won't break stuff: dpkg-divert,
see policy...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: CVS versions

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Dan Korostelev wrote:
 How to properly debianize and maintain CVS versions of software? There's
 no tarballs and no version in directory name.

Make a orig.tar.gz out of the CVS co.

and name it something like previous released version+cvsYYMMDD

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: CVS versions

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Dan Korostelev wrote:
 How to properly debianize and maintain CVS versions of software? There's
 no tarballs and no version in directory name.

Make a orig.tar.gz out of the CVS co.

and name it something like previous released version+cvsYYMMDD

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Looking for a sponsor to upload GNOME PPP

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Colin Watson wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 01:15:58AM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
  Anyway I think as perl is not build-essential, itself should show up in
  Build-Depends even.
 
 /usr/bin/perl is in perl-base, which is Essential and therefore
 build-essential. XML::Parser does need to be in the build-dependencies.

and perl even is build-essential, too since dpkg-dev is which depends on
perl :)

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Looking for a sponsor to upload GNOME PPP

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Colin Watson wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 01:15:58AM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote:
  Anyway I think as perl is not build-essential, itself should show up in
  Build-Depends even.
 
 /usr/bin/perl is in perl-base, which is Essential and therefore
 build-essential. XML::Parser does need to be in the build-dependencies.

and perl even is build-essential, too since dpkg-dev is which depends on
perl :)

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: swftools - collection of SWF (Flash) manipulation and generation

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Clement nodens Hermann wrote:
[ snip ]
 ~ It also provide librfxswf, a fully featured library which can be used
 ~ for standalone SWF generation. It includes support for bitmaps, buttons,
 ~ shapes, text, fonts, sound etc. It also has support for ActionScript
 ~ using the Ming ActionCompiler.

Please package this (shared I suppose?) library in the normal way
as librswfSONAME number and librswf-dev.

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: swftools - collection of SWF (Flash) manipulation and generation

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Clement nodens Hermann wrote:
[ snip ]
 ~ It also provide librfxswf, a fully featured library which can be used
 ~ for standalone SWF generation. It includes support for bitmaps, buttons,
 ~ shapes, text, fonts, sound etc. It also has support for ActionScript
 ~ using the Ming ActionCompiler.

Please package this (shared I suppose?) library in the normal way
as librswfSONAME number and librswf-dev.

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: renaming source package

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
 The other approach is to ask for removal of the old source package and
 upload a new one which generates the same binary packages. This seems to
 be the best approach but I'm a bit scared about the transition phase ...

I agree.

 would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
 removed?

Yes.

Grüße/Regards,

René
- -- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAl5aN+FmQsCSK63MRAv7SAJ9f2BZJDaM7w5z61n32Rk9ZgBpUEQCfZtMa
q5wp81LqD33+wy4kAjulPM8=
=qD8f
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: renaming source package

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
 Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue?

epoch.

Grüße/Regards,

René
- -- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAl7nD+FmQsCSK63MRAgk0AJ41RN1GozPRT3/Pe/E5JG8ucso65wCgg5ek
4Z9/IIkPwcF8xU+zXt6Gk0M=
=a3Nr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: renaming source package

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
 The other approach is to ask for removal of the old source package and
 upload a new one which generates the same binary packages. This seems to
 be the best approach but I'm a bit scared about the transition phase ...

I agree.

 would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is
 removed?

Yes.

Grüße/Regards,

René
- -- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAl5aN+FmQsCSK63MRAv7SAJ9f2BZJDaM7w5z61n32Rk9ZgBpUEQCfZtMa
q5wp81LqD33+wy4kAjulPM8=
=qD8f
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: renaming source package

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
 Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue?

epoch.

Grüße/Regards,

René
- -- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAl7nD+FmQsCSK63MRAgk0AJ41RN1GozPRT3/Pe/E5JG8ucso65wCgg5ek
4Z9/IIkPwcF8xU+zXt6Gk0M=
=a3Nr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Problem with Files section in .changes

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi.

Steffen Nissen wrote:
 Tried to build it with pbuilder, but still the same problem. Am I doing
 something wrong?

You probably are missing an appropriate Section: field for the source
part (the first one) of your debian/control file..)

Grüße/Regards,

René
- -- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAgDZL+FmQsCSK63MRAmRGAJsFTuJD/IsOPjmZXJhS0B1Jom9wawCeNrJQ
fV5TMGASlD4/+1cVC0Fn4Wc=
=TQlD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Problem with Files section in .changes

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi.

Steffen Nissen wrote:
 Tried to build it with pbuilder, but still the same problem. Am I doing
 something wrong?

You probably are missing an appropriate Section: field for the source
part (the first one) of your debian/control file..)

Grüße/Regards,

René
- -- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAgDZL+FmQsCSK63MRAmRGAJsFTuJD/IsOPjmZXJhS0B1Jom9wawCeNrJQ
fV5TMGASlD4/+1cVC0Fn4Wc=
=TQlD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Make me understand the bug system better.

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Ali Bombali wrote:
 The right way to do this is to use the X-Debbugs-CC header. Add a line like 
 this to your message's mail header (not to the pseudo header with the 
 package field):
 
 X-Debbugs-CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Could someone give me a example of this ? How do I do this the proper way? 
 If not in the pseido header field, then where?

In the normal mail headers.

e.g.

From: foo
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: bar
Reply-To:
X-Debbugs-Cc: baz

If your MUA doesn't let you edit it *shrugs*, get one which supports
it...

Grüße/Regards,

René
- -- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAZZX6+FmQsCSK63MRAq/gAJ0UFvU6NLJTW+lv90rgF+ZMla38dwCeP6vD
kKQC6LPCR7ssRLTLwaAOiDI=
=5SOc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Make me understand the bug system better.

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Ali Bombali wrote:
 The right way to do this is to use the X-Debbugs-CC header. Add a line like 
 this to your message's mail header (not to the pseudo header with the 
 package field):
 
 X-Debbugs-CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Could someone give me a example of this ? How do I do this the proper way? 
 If not in the pseido header field, then where?

In the normal mail headers.

e.g.

From: foo
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: bar
Reply-To:
X-Debbugs-Cc: baz

If your MUA doesn't let you edit it *shrugs*, get one which supports
it...

Grüße/Regards,

René
- -- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAZZX6+FmQsCSK63MRAq/gAJ0UFvU6NLJTW+lv90rgF+ZMla38dwCeP6vD
kKQC6LPCR7ssRLTLwaAOiDI=
=5SOc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

[ read http://learn.to.quote ]

Hi,

elijah wright wrote:
 frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in
 your email client?  it corrupts the screen state in pine EVERY time i get
 one of your email messages...  mutt doesn't get corrupted, but it shows me
 a big fat questionmark instead of the letter between K and s in your
 last name... i see that your mails are coming across as latin-1 encoded -
 is whatever the second letter of your name is really in that charset?

Yes, the ü is as every german umlaut in latin-1.

 alternatively, can someone suggest a solution to the screen corruption?  i
 think what might be happening is that the letter in question is taking two
 cells on the screen instead of the ONE that it should take up...

don't use pine? :)
i
Grüße/Regards,

René
- -- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAXyXK+FmQsCSK63MRApDrAJ9izysSXYWWH9r8v20eBhdBvdFqPwCfdFyb
CwKbmX6hXZYyXQtFP7KuUbo=
=uVfK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?

[Rene Engelhard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

[ read http://learn.to.quote ]

Hi,

elijah wright wrote:
 frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in
 your email client?  it corrupts the screen state in pine EVERY time i get
 one of your email messages...  mutt doesn't get corrupted, but it shows me
 a big fat questionmark instead of the letter between K and s in your
 last name... i see that your mails are coming across as latin-1 encoded -
 is whatever the second letter of your name is really in that charset?

Yes, the ü is as every german umlaut in latin-1.

 alternatively, can someone suggest a solution to the screen corruption?  i
 think what might be happening is that the letter in question is taking two
 cells on the screen instead of the ONE that it should take up...

don't use pine? :)
i
Grüße/Regards,

René
- -- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAXyXK+FmQsCSK63MRApDrAJ9izysSXYWWH9r8v20eBhdBvdFqPwCfdFyb
CwKbmX6hXZYyXQtFP7KuUbo=
=uVfK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Alexander Bürger wrote:
 That something was time passing by :) To create all the files I wrote a
 small script which created a orig.tar.gz and calls dpkg-source -b etc.
 Unfortunately I made it recreate the orig.tar.gz for each run, resulting
 in different time stamps inside the tar and slightly different
 compression. Now I adapted my script to keep an existing orig.tar.gz,
 created a new debian revision 2.1, and uploaded to sf.

Argh. This is just plainly _wrong_. Read policy and developers reference
about versioning what -2.1 actually means...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Alexander Bürger wrote:
 Thanks. Now revision 3 is on sf.
 
 I must admit that I skipped the NMU chapter. But still I do not find such
 a statement that dots in debian revision are reserved. Chapter 5.11.4.1 of
 the developers-reference says should add a new minor version number.
 Does this imply that a minor version number may not exist before?

When the previous version was a Maintainer upload, yes.

-2 - NMU is -2.1

-2.1 (previous NMU) - next NMU is -2.2

Anyhow, besides the fact I don't like your changelog entry for -2.1
 ( * Fix packaging problem - which? I know, but changelog is
   for documenting the actual changes)
i'll see over this, the package otherwise is ok and uploaded.
Please write better changelog entries next time, though...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Alexander Bürger wrote:
  W: fig2sxd source: newer-standards-version 3.6.0
 
 I cannot reproduce this. I have installed lintian 1.22.9, but it does not
 give this warning. How do you get this? Anyway, after reading the
 changelog for debian-policy I decided to put Standards-Version: 3.6.1.0
 into debain/control.

oh, this is just a lintin buosity. it simly does not know about newer
Standards-Version's:

You should have this with 1.22.9... weird..

Anyhow, it's just a W:...

  E: fig2sxd: no-copyright-file
 
  And really, it isn't installed. Why have you commented dh_installdocs?
 
 Well, this is a good question! I think I thought it was going to try to
 install some documentation, which does not exist except for the man page;
 I did not think of the copyright file. Anyway, it's uncommented again.
 
 I put the files to sourceforge again. I also signed them now - am I
 supposed to do that? To me it seems quite useless now, as even if I would
 make the public key accessible, nobody knows that it's mine.

well, it doesn't hurt.. Although a public key not accessible doesn't
exactly make much sense. ;) And gpg already shows the uid etc so
verify the signature would work when the key is on a keyserver or
somesuch.

Anyway...

$ dpkg-source -x fig2sxd_0.10-2.dsc 
dpkg-source: error: file fig2sxd_0.10.orig.tar.gz has size 20465 instead
of expected 20466

Something happened so that the .dsc contains the wrong value...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Alexander Bürger wrote:
  W: fig2sxd source: newer-standards-version 3.6.0
 
 I cannot reproduce this. I have installed lintian 1.22.9, but it does not
 give this warning. How do you get this? Anyway, after reading the
 changelog for debian-policy I decided to put Standards-Version: 3.6.1.0
 into debain/control.

oh, this is just a lintin buosity. it simly does not know about newer
Standards-Version's:

You should have this with 1.22.9... weird..

Anyhow, it's just a W:...

  E: fig2sxd: no-copyright-file
 
  And really, it isn't installed. Why have you commented dh_installdocs?
 
 Well, this is a good question! I think I thought it was going to try to
 install some documentation, which does not exist except for the man page;
 I did not think of the copyright file. Anyway, it's uncommented again.
 
 I put the files to sourceforge again. I also signed them now - am I
 supposed to do that? To me it seems quite useless now, as even if I would
 make the public key accessible, nobody knows that it's mine.

well, it doesn't hurt.. Although a public key not accessible doesn't
exactly make much sense. ;) And gpg already shows the uid etc so
verify the signature would work when the key is on a keyserver or
somesuch.

Anyway...

$ dpkg-source -x fig2sxd_0.10-2.dsc 
dpkg-source: error: file fig2sxd_0.10.orig.tar.gz has size 20465 instead
of expected 20466

Something happened so that the .dsc contains the wrong value...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Alexander Bürger wrote:
 I tried to follow your advice, and I also converted everything to utf-8
 (basically the ü from my name, which occurs in almost all the files). Of
 course, a new upstream version was necessary, now it's 0.10. The files,
 including .dsc etc. are available at sourceforge http://fig2sxd.sf.net/
 (as before).

dpkg-deb: baue Paket »fig2sxd« in »../fig2sxd_0.10-1_i386.deb«.
 dpkg-genchanges
dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload
dpkg-buildpackage: full upload (original source is included)
Now running lintian...
W: fig2sxd source: newer-standards-version 3.6.0
E: fig2sxd: no-copyright-file
Finished running lintian.
 
And really, it isn't installed. Why have you commented dh_installdocs?

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Alexander Bürger wrote:
 I tried to make a debian package of it; it's small (program, manpage,
 changelog, copyright), but still it's my first package. Lintian does not
 complain. I would be happy if someone could check and sponsor my package.
 It is available at http://fig2sxd.sf.net/.

There is juyt the _i386.deb. For sponsoring, you need to give us thze
source, too (the .dsc and .diff.gz. The orig.tar.gz too, although it
should be the same ad the normal tar.gz

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi again,

Rene Engelhard wrote:
 Alexander Bürger wrote:
  I tried to make a debian package of it; it's small (program, manpage,
  changelog, copyright), but still it's my first package. Lintian does not
  complain. I would be happy if someone could check and sponsor my package.
  It is available at http://fig2sxd.sf.net/.
 
 There is juyt the _i386.deb. For sponsoring, you need to give us thze
 source, too (the .dsc and .diff.gz. The orig.tar.gz too, although it
 should be the same ad the normal tar.gz

I just fetched your .tar.gz from the site and noticed there is a debian/
already in it and the changelog is Debian-native.

No. Don't package it Debian-native even if you are the upstream. It's
not.

Another points:

1) libz-dev is only a virtual packge: make that zlib1g-dev | libz-dev or
   kick that libz-dev shit out in favour of zlib1g-dev...

2) It's not compiled with -g. Compile with -g.

3) it does not support noopt in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.

Another (minor) point:

4) remove those superfluous comments from debian/rules.

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Rene Engelhard wrote:
 No. Don't package it Debian-native even if you are the upstream. It's
 not.

What I forgot here:

Fix this:

dpkg-source: warning: source directory `./fig2sxd' is not
sourcepackage-upstreamversion `fig2sxd-0.9a'

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Alexander Bürger wrote:
 I tried to make a debian package of it; it's small (program, manpage,
 changelog, copyright), but still it's my first package. Lintian does not
 complain. I would be happy if someone could check and sponsor my package.
 It is available at http://fig2sxd.sf.net/.

There is juyt the _i386.deb. For sponsoring, you need to give us thze
source, too (the .dsc and .diff.gz. The orig.tar.gz too, although it
should be the same ad the normal tar.gz

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi again,

Rene Engelhard wrote:
 Alexander Bürger wrote:
  I tried to make a debian package of it; it's small (program, manpage,
  changelog, copyright), but still it's my first package. Lintian does not
  complain. I would be happy if someone could check and sponsor my package.
  It is available at http://fig2sxd.sf.net/.
 
 There is juyt the _i386.deb. For sponsoring, you need to give us thze
 source, too (the .dsc and .diff.gz. The orig.tar.gz too, although it
 should be the same ad the normal tar.gz

I just fetched your .tar.gz from the site and noticed there is a debian/
already in it and the changelog is Debian-native.

No. Don't package it Debian-native even if you are the upstream. It's
not.

Another points:

1) libz-dev is only a virtual packge: make that zlib1g-dev | libz-dev or
   kick that libz-dev shit out in favour of zlib1g-dev...

2) It's not compiled with -g. Compile with -g.

3) it does not support noopt in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.

Another (minor) point:

4) remove those superfluous comments from debian/rules.

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS: fig2sxd

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Rene Engelhard wrote:
 No. Don't package it Debian-native even if you are the upstream. It's
 not.

What I forgot here:

Fix this:

dpkg-source: warning: source directory `./fig2sxd' is not
sourcepackage-upstreamversion `fig2sxd-0.9a'

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS(3): kdiff3 - compares and merges 2 or 3 files or directories

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
 (*) My former sponsor seems to be MIA (Rene, are you out there?).

*raises hand* :)

Yes. I am. And I am not MIA.

I just forgot you :/

Grüße/Regards,

René

P.S: Get a MUA so you can cosspost rightly or let it be...
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS(3): kdiff3 - compares and merges 2 or 3 files or directories

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
 (*) My former sponsor seems to be MIA (Rene, are you out there?).

*raises hand* :)

Yes. I am. And I am not MIA.

I just forgot you :/

Grüße/Regards,

René

P.S: Get a MUA so you can cosspost rightly or let it be...
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: pbuilder ${shlibs:Depends} yields libc6-2.2.4-4 ???

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Bob Proulx wrote:
   dpkg-deb --info /var/cache/pbuilder/result/*.deb |grep Depends:
Depends: libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
 
 So then in an attempt to resolve this I add DISTRIBUTION=woody to my

Why? This libc6 Depends: is fully correct for builds on woody...

 Why does building a package with pbuilder generate the seemingly wrong
 version for Depends: of 2.2.4-4 regarldless that 2.2.5-11.5 is the
 installed library?  What am I doing wrong?

Nothing.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo chroot chroots/stable cat /var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6.shlibs
libm 6 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libc 6 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
/lib/ld-linux 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
ld-linux 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libdl 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libutil 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libresolv 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_files 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_dns 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_compat 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_nis 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_nisplus 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_ldap 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_hesiod 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnsl 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libdb 2
libcrypt 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libBrokenLocale 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
librt 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libanl 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libpthread 0 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libthread_db 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: pbuilder ${shlibs:Depends} yields libc6-2.2.4-4 ???

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Bob Proulx wrote:
   dpkg-deb --info /var/cache/pbuilder/result/*.deb |grep Depends:
Depends: libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
 
 So then in an attempt to resolve this I add DISTRIBUTION=woody to my

Why? This libc6 Depends: is fully correct for builds on woody...

 Why does building a package with pbuilder generate the seemingly wrong
 version for Depends: of 2.2.4-4 regarldless that 2.2.5-11.5 is the
 installed library?  What am I doing wrong?

Nothing.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo chroot chroots/stable cat 
/var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6.shlibs
libm 6 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libc 6 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
/lib/ld-linux 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
ld-linux 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libdl 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libutil 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libresolv 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_files 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_dns 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_compat 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_nis 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_nisplus 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_ldap 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnss_hesiod 2 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libnsl 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libdb 2
libcrypt 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libBrokenLocale 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
librt 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libanl 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libpthread 0 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)
libthread_db 1 libc6 (= 2.2.4-4)

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS(2): kdiff3 - compares and merges 2 or 3 files or directories

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
 I'm still looking for someone to test and upload the following package.

[ snip ]

replied to him on -qt-kde where he posted that request too...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFS(2): kdiff3 - compares and merges 2 or 3 files or directories

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Eike zyro Sauer wrote:
 I'm still looking for someone to test and upload the following package.

[ snip ]

replied to him on -qt-kde where he posted that request too...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Adopting orphaned packages (axkit and relatives)

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Michael K. Edwards wrote:
 I am currently running AxKit on woody + backports of many packages on
 which it depends.  If I understand correctly, I will need to build on
 sarge (or sid?) in order to produce a package fit for upload.  Should I

clean sid.

 begin by setting up a sarge system, and if so, what is the best procedure
 currently?  (I would default to x86 hardware since I have several handy,

Well, what you want. A full system, chroot, pbuilder...

 but I could also set up a Sparc if that's better.)  Should I install woody

well, your decision.

 and then upgrade, or should I try out the new debian-installer?  And once

doesn't matter.

 I have a sarge system, are there packages I should pin before proceeding
 on to sid, or is it the other way around (upgrade only selected packages
 to sid)?

Once you have a sarge system you need to upgrade again to sid :P

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Adopting orphaned packages (axkit and relatives)

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Michael K. Edwards wrote:
 I am currently running AxKit on woody + backports of many packages on
 which it depends.  If I understand correctly, I will need to build on
 sarge (or sid?) in order to produce a package fit for upload.  Should I

clean sid.

 begin by setting up a sarge system, and if so, what is the best procedure
 currently?  (I would default to x86 hardware since I have several handy,

Well, what you want. A full system, chroot, pbuilder...

 but I could also set up a Sparc if that's better.)  Should I install woody

well, your decision.

 and then upgrade, or should I try out the new debian-installer?  And once

doesn't matter.

 I have a sarge system, are there packages I should pin before proceeding
 on to sid, or is it the other way around (upgrade only selected packages
 to sid)?

Once you have a sarge system you need to upgrade again to sid :P

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Newly created packages from the wishlist

[Rene Engelhard]

Ky Vinh Tran Luu wrote:
 that mentors are not too busy preparing for the sid release.

There won't be a sid release ever

SCNR,

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


pgpPTD5bPor8d.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Newly created packages from the wishlist

[Rene Engelhard]

Ky Vinh Tran Luu wrote:
 that mentors are not too busy preparing for the sid release.

There won't be a sid release ever

SCNR,

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: ispell-lt -- Lithuanian dictionaries

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

K?stutis Bili?nas wrote:
 I'm hoping to find a sponsor for the ispell-lt package that I've
 created (the ITP is bug #206290).

[ snip ]

I'll check them, upload them or pester you with corrections.
Beware, I wrote the myspell policy... :)

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Sponsor vs. Developer Process?

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Adam Kessel wrote:
 I am wondering if it makes sense to try to find a sponsor to upload my
 package now, or wait to go through the entire DD process before trying to
 include salonify in Debian, or if it really matters which way I go?  I

yes.

You won't be approved with no package in the archive.

 understand it can take many months to become a DD, but also it appears
 that it might take many months to find a sponsor.

Not really. It depends whether a DD has time and interest in the
package.

As others said alreday, the hundred image gallery program isn't _that_
interesting...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: pose - Palm OS Emulator (5th -and last- try)

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Marcin Orlowski wrote:
 On Sunday of July 27 2003 20:09, Juan Manuel García Molina wrote:
 
  Over a month ago, pose package was orphaned. I'd like to take care of it,
  so I placed an ITA on wnpp. I've been working for a while in this package,
  but I can't upload it because I'm not yet a Debian Developer. It's my 5th
  try to get an sponsor, so if this time noone wants to sponsor the package,
  I'll suppose it is not interesting enough to remain in Debian. So, my
  question is: would you like to upload pose into Debian repository? Thanks.
 
 Excuse me for speaking up here, but I was watching Juan's tries for some time,
 and noone gave him even no. I am not trying to judge here, especially you
 all doing your Debian work in own spare time, but doesn't this ring a bell
 that there is something in the whole procedure that simply does not work?

No,

 I can fully understand that noone of DD subscribed here may be personally not
 interested in non mainstream app like Pose, but since package needs a mentor
 no matter how mainstream it is, there should be a better way than just good

Or don't have the time to check the package...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Sponsor vs. Developer Process?

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Matthew Palmer wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:22:20PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
  You won't be approved with no package in the archive.
 
 coughbullshitcough
 
 Unless things have changed in the 18 months or so I've been a DD.  I had no
 packages sponsored or otherwise in the archive for about the first month or
 so after I got my account.  Call me a slow starter, if you will.

It _is_ so.
Definitely.

We talked with tbm about it who said that, too.
He should know..

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Sponsor vs. Developer Process?

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Adam Kessel wrote:
 I am wondering if it makes sense to try to find a sponsor to upload my
 package now, or wait to go through the entire DD process before trying to
 include salonify in Debian, or if it really matters which way I go?  I

yes.

You won't be approved with no package in the archive.

 understand it can take many months to become a DD, but also it appears
 that it might take many months to find a sponsor.

Not really. It depends whether a DD has time and interest in the
package.

As others said alreday, the hundred image gallery program isn't _that_
interesting...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


pgprIfg1PSh3r.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFS: pose - Palm OS Emulator (5th -and last- try)

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Marcin Orlowski wrote:
 On Sunday of July 27 2003 20:09, Juan Manuel García Molina wrote:
 
  Over a month ago, pose package was orphaned. I'd like to take care of it,
  so I placed an ITA on wnpp. I've been working for a while in this package,
  but I can't upload it because I'm not yet a Debian Developer. It's my 5th
  try to get an sponsor, so if this time noone wants to sponsor the package,
  I'll suppose it is not interesting enough to remain in Debian. So, my
  question is: would you like to upload pose into Debian repository? Thanks.
 
 Excuse me for speaking up here, but I was watching Juan's tries for some time,
 and noone gave him even no. I am not trying to judge here, especially you
 all doing your Debian work in own spare time, but doesn't this ring a bell
 that there is something in the whole procedure that simply does not work?

No,

 I can fully understand that noone of DD subscribed here may be personally not
 interested in non mainstream app like Pose, but since package needs a mentor
 no matter how mainstream it is, there should be a better way than just good

Or don't have the time to check the package...

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


pgplGds6eHNTZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Sponsor vs. Developer Process?

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Matthew Palmer wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:22:20PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
  You won't be approved with no package in the archive.
 
 coughbullshitcough
 
 Unless things have changed in the 18 months or so I've been a DD.  I had no
 packages sponsored or otherwise in the archive for about the first month or
 so after I got my account.  Call me a slow starter, if you will.

It _is_ so.
Definitely.

We talked with tbm about it who said that, too.
He should know..

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
  


pgpp1rgOZ0lqE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Some packages to you for testing

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Jaime Robles wrote:
 I have packaged two KDE apps.
   KWifimanager, a WIFI card configuration program.
   KImageMapEditor, a html image map editor.
 
 I would like you to test them and check for bugs, errors and so on.

kimagemapeditor is already in the archive, currently maintained
by Joerg Jasper [EMAIL PROTECTED]

There's an ITA bug filed from Joerg, which got the last post on Apr 1[1]:
in which Sebastian Muszynski [EMAIL PROTECTED] stated his wants to ITA
it.

Have you contacted him?
(Cc'ing both)

Regards,

René

[1] April's fool? :-)

-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Machine access for NM Applicants.

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,
Leo Costela Antunes wrote:
 The buildd-logs[1] don't provide enough debug information?

In this case not.
In many other cases also not...

Regards,

Rene
--
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Machine access for NM Applicants.

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,
Leo Costela Antunes wrote:
 The buildd-logs[1] don't provide enough debug information?

In this case not.
In many other cases also not...

Regards,

Rene
--
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgpve7BKogxUG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Debian Mentors Project

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
 Really nice job but the first side effect is already there:
 
 Package: icaclient
 Version: 6.30-2
 Priority: optional
 Section: net
 Maintainer: Christoph Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Depends: libxaw7

And that looks like it is f*cked. Is this Depends: done manually?
I do not thing dpkg-shlibdeps did that. Where is libc6?

 I think upload must be moderated somehow. Even the uploader himself claim
 that he is unsure about licence of the product.

Jup. That is bad.

joke mode=teacher language=germanChristoph: setzen, sechs :)/joke

Regards,

Rene
--
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgpudDRoJfeiw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: lintian and linda

[Rene Engelhard]

Holger Kubiak wrote:
 There is an 3.5.6-entry in debian/control. How can I test if my package
 complies 3.5.9.0?

debian-policy package. upgrading-checklist.txt

 BTW: On which packages should I use linda and lintian? In the manpage for
 lintian I found: 
 
If you specify a .changes file, Lintian will process all packages
listed in that file.
 
 I could not find an analogously statement for linda.

linda does that too.

Regards,

Rene
-- 
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgpOP9ZxV0qkx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Lintian error when packaging an app.

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Jaime Robles wrote:
 I am having some problems when packaging an application (KDE app):
 ==
 E: klog: symlink-should-be-relative usr/share/doc/kde/HTML/en/klog/common 
 /usr/share/doc/kde/HTML/en/common
 E: klog: package-has-a-duplicate-relation xlibs ( 4.1.0), xlibs ( 4.2.0)
 ==
 
 I think i don't have to pay atention to the second error but it is the first 

Right.

 time i get the first one...
 What is to be done to solve that problem?
 I have seen the lintian reports and MANY kde apps seems to suffer the same 
 error in lintian...
 http://lintian.debian.org/reports/Tsymlink-should-be-relative.html

Yes. That's why am ignoring it right now...

Regards,

Rene
-- 
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgpeAK2MgEyWZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: openoffice.org- l10n, spellcheck ,help -hu

[Rene Engelhard]

BaliHB wrote:
 I looking for a sponsor for 3 packages.
 openoffice.org-l10n-hu
 openoffice.org-spellcheck-hu
 openoffice.org-help-hu
 
 4 more info check:
 https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/ooodeb-hu/

For openoffice.org-spellcheck-hu it my be OK, but at the moment we are
deploying a new policy for them, so please be patient.

For the other two, please contact us (the Debian OpenOffice.org Team on
debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org or #debian-oo on IRC so we
can look at them.
It would be good to develop a patch to include -l10n-hu into the
pfficial source to get it submitted for OpenOffice.org's upstream
later...)

!! Nobody please sponsor these packages now !!

Regards,

Rene
-- 
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgpYkRt2HREZT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Moving packages from Requested to Can't be packaged

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
 / Bas Zoetekouw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 | AFAIK, there is no automatic way of doing this.  What about adding a
 | new tag, something like CBP (cannot be packaged), to the wnpp?
 
 Why not simply close the bug and give an explanation?

Because - when it really cannot be packaged and if the bug is archived -
someone comes again with an ITP for that and someone has to explain him
(or he does find out himself) that it cannot be packaged.

Waste of time, no?

Regards,

Rene

-- 
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgpBZaF7OKLwi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: A question about the application process

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Roland Mas wrote:
 Deedra Waters (2003-04-24 10:21:58 -0400) :
 
  My question is this. I tried submitting the application with out the
  gpg key info to go ahead and get that part going as my
  sponsor/advocate suggested, but the application thing came back
  saying there was an error processing my application My question
  is, did it go threw or not? I really can't tell by that message. Or
  do I need to have the gpg key signed as well before I fill out the
  application?
 
 I'd say you can submit a gpg key even if it is not signed, and get the
 signature later as part of the process.

Well, that depends on the AM.
I for myself require a proper ID check (and therfore a signature on the
gpg key in most cases) _before_ doing anything further (PP, TS, ..)

Regards,

Rene
-- 
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgpI7rQcxsGaP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Can somebody upload my update, please?

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi Aaron,

Aaron Isotton wrote:
 I'm the maintainer of sitemap, and I've got an update.  It is lintian
 and linda clean, and I don't believe it's ready for upload.  It's
   ^
You don't believe it is ready for an update but you want that we should
do it anyway? :)

SCNR,

Rene

-- 
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgp2lXaFqMpqt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Where can I get CVS space for collaborative maintenance?

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Johannes Rohr wrote:
 Hello mentors and Debian hackers,
 
 I am co-maintaining a small package (nautilus-media) with another
 newbie maintainer. The best way to keep our work in sync would
 probably be setting up a CVS repository for that package. But since
 I'm behind a dialup line, setting it up on my box is not an option.
 
 So can anyone tell me, where to turn in search of CVS space?
 
 Thanks a lot for any hints,

Well, normally, there is cvs.debian.org.

But

a) I think it isn't the right place for such a small package

and

b) it seems that it is closed anyway

Regards,

Rene
-- 
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: How to mantain a package... easily

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Jaime Robles wrote:
 I mean... could it be possible to execute any command with any parameter like:
 update_from_sources new_sources.tar.gz to generate the same debian package 
 in the easy way?
 :-)
 
 I have read some docs, some are still missing and maybe it doesn't exist... 
 but i would like to know O:-)

man uupdate

Regards,

Rene
-- 
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: How to mantain a package... easily

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Jaime Robles wrote:
 I mean... could it be possible to execute any command with any parameter like:
 update_from_sources new_sources.tar.gz to generate the same debian package 
 in the easy way?
 :-)
 
 I have read some docs, some are still missing and maybe it doesn't exist... 
 but i would like to know O:-)

man uupdate

Regards,

Rene
-- 
 .''`.  Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73


pgpKJUxooXZvu.pgp
Description: PGP signature