Bug#659537: marked as done (RFS: burp)
Your message dated Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:39:01 +0100 with message-id <87ipjb2hu2@deep-thought.43-1.org> and subject line Re: Bug#659537: RFS: burp has caused the Debian Bug report #659537, regarding RFS: burp to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 659537: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=659537 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "burp". * Package name: burp Version : 1.3.0-2 Upstream Author : Graham Keeling * URL : http://burp.grke.net/ * License : AGPLv3 Section : utils It builds those binary packages: burp - simple network BackUp and Restore Program To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/burp Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/burp/burp_1.3.0-2.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.` Changes since the last upload: burp (1.3.0-2) unstable; urgency=low * added forwarded header to patches * removed changelog entries from patches * removed debian/README (Closes: #659453) * removed blank MAILTO header in cronjob and redirected output to /var/log/burp-client (Closes: #659452) * added extra logrotate for /var/log/burp-client * changed /var/run to /run (Closes: #659464) * thanks to Justin B Rye from debian-l10n-english team for helping with linguistic support -- Bastiaan Franciscus van den Dikkenberg Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:48:03 +0100 Kind regards, Bas van den Dikkenberg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAk8286IACgkQInDFGMlxAyO9PwCfTbdZcd+0FFNHuKY84vvSjqt0 QYIAoJEKeHZxD3mMGxGaYKA6J55heQm7 =TK/+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Bas van den Dikkenberg writes: > dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/burp/burp_1.3.0-2.dsc > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.` Which looks like it was sponsored. Ansgar --- End Message ---
Bug#659536: marked as done (RFS: burp)
Your message dated Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:39:01 +0100 with message-id <87ipjb2hu2@deep-thought.43-1.org> and subject line Re: Bug#659537: RFS: burp has caused the Debian Bug report #659537, regarding RFS: burp to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 659537: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=659537 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "burp". * Package name: burp Version : 1.3.0-2 Upstream Author : Graham Keeling * URL : http://burp.grke.net/ * License : AGPLv3 Section : utils It builds those binary packages: burp - simple network BackUp and Restore Program To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/burp Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/burp/burp_1.3.0-2.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.` Changes since the last upload: burp (1.3.0-2) unstable; urgency=low * added forwarded header to patches * removed changelog entries from patches * removed debian/README (Closes: #659453) * removed blank MAILTO header in cronjob and redirected output to /var/log/burp-client (Closes: #659452) * added extra logrotate for /var/log/burp-client * changed /var/run to /run (Closes: #659464) * thanks to Justin B Rye from debian-l10n-english team for helping with linguistic support -- Bastiaan Franciscus van den Dikkenberg Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:48:03 +0100 Kind regards, Bas van den Dikkenberg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAk8286IACgkQInDFGMlxAyO9PwCfTbdZcd+0FFNHuKY84vvSjqt0 QYIAoJEKeHZxD3mMGxGaYKA6J55heQm7 =TK/+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Bas van den Dikkenberg writes: > dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/burp/burp_1.3.0-2.dsc > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.` Which looks like it was sponsored. Ansgar --- End Message ---
Bug#659538: marked as done (RFS: burp)
Your message dated Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:39:01 +0100 with message-id <87ipjb2hu2@deep-thought.43-1.org> and subject line Re: Bug#659537: RFS: burp has caused the Debian Bug report #659537, regarding RFS: burp to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 659537: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=659537 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "burp". * Package name: burp Version : 1.3.0-2 Upstream Author : Graham Keeling * URL : http://burp.grke.net/ * License : AGPLv3 Section : utils It builds those binary packages: burp - simple network BackUp and Restore Program To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/burp Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/burp/burp_1.3.0-2.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.` Changes since the last upload: burp (1.3.0-2) unstable; urgency=low * added forwarded header to patches * removed changelog entries from patches * removed debian/README (Closes: #659453) * removed blank MAILTO header in cronjob and redirected output to /var/log/burp-client (Closes: #659452) * added extra logrotate for /var/log/burp-client * changed /var/run to /run (Closes: #659464) * thanks to Justin B Rye from debian-l10n-english team for helping with linguistic support -- Bastiaan Franciscus van den Dikkenberg Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:48:03 +0100 Kind regards, Bas van den Dikkenberg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAk8286IACgkQInDFGMlxAyO9PwCfTbdZcd+0FFNHuKY84vvSjqt0 QYIAoJEKeHZxD3mMGxGaYKA6J55heQm7 =TK/+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Bas van den Dikkenberg writes: > dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/burp/burp_1.3.0-2.dsc > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.` Which looks like it was sponsored. Ansgar --- End Message ---
Bug#659543: marked as done ((no subject))
Your message dated Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:39:01 +0100 with message-id <87ipjb2hu2@deep-thought.43-1.org> and subject line Re: Bug#659537: RFS: burp has caused the Debian Bug report #659537, regarding (no subject) to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 659537: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=659537 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Subject: RFS: burp 1.3.0-2 Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "burp". * Package name: burp Version : 1.3.0-2 Upstream Author : Graham Keeling * URL : http://burp.grke.net/ * License : AGPLv3 Section : utils It builds those binary packages: burp - simple network BackUp and Restore Program To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/burp Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/burp/burp_1.3.0-2.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.` Changes since the last upload: burp (1.3.0-2) unstable; urgency=low * added forwarded header to patches * removed changelog entries from patches * removed debian/README (Closes: #659453) * removed blank MAILTO header in cronjob and redirected output to /var/log/burp-client (Closes: #659452) * added extra logrotate for /var/log/burp-client * changed /var/run to /run (Closes: #659464) * thanks to Justin B Rye from debian-l10n-english team for helping with linguistic support -- Bastiaan Franciscus van den Dikkenberg Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:48:03 +0100 Kind regards, Bas van den Dikkenberg - -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers testing-proposed-updates APT policy: (500, 'testing-proposed-updates'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US.UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAk829XMACgkQInDFGMlxAyN47ACfXwAehurz6B60FaMI3mtP00XQ 0zoAn2IKQoYpLf2Pyc8mX7vcRDpFw9wy =R+Md -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Bas van den Dikkenberg writes: > dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/burp/burp_1.3.0-2.dsc > > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.` Which looks like it was sponsored. Ansgar --- End Message ---
Bug#658835: RFS: aspsms-t [NEW]
Dear mentors, dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/aspsms-t/aspsms-t_1.3.0-1.dsc Changes since last upload: * lib/ASPSMS/Storage.pm: Change to IO::File functions. * lib/ASPSMS/Storage.pm: Closes github issue: #1 * README: Update documentation Thanks, -Marco signature.asc Description: GnuPG Signature
Re: how to manage d/changelog for updated but not yet sponsored package
* Ben Finney , 2012-02-13, 13:40: I want to keep trace of it in the d/changelog by keeping my first version entry and adding a second entry. Can I do that ? Will it confuse some Debian robots ? It's fine. I consider uploading the package to ‘mentors.debian.net’ a release of the package, since at that point interested people (e.g. reviewers) can rely on it, and the version should refer uniquely to what I uploaded at that time. Be aware, though, that some people disagree (on the grounds that it's not a new version until it enters Debian). I believe that vast majority of sponsors disagree. -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20120213105345.ga2...@jwilk.net
Re: how to manage d/changelog for updated but not yet sponsored package
Le Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:53:45AM +0100, Jakub Wilk a écrit : > * Ben Finney , 2012-02-13, 13:40: > >>I want to keep trace of it in the d/changelog by keeping my > >>first version entry and adding a second entry. Can I do that ? > >>Will it confuse some Debian robots ? > > > >It's fine. I consider uploading the package to > >‘mentors.debian.net’ a release of the package, since at that point > >interested people (e.g. reviewers) can rely on it, and the version > >should refer uniquely to what I uploaded at that time. > > > >Be aware, though, that some people disagree (on the grounds that > >it's not a new version until it enters Debian). > > I believe that vast majority of sponsors disagree. Note however that the FTP team does not reject such packages. I tend to keep the changelog entries of packages that have been released outside Debian for the public. However, I revert all previous “unstable” entries to “UNRELEASED” to clearly mark that these packages were not in the Debian archive. Have a nice day, Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20120213110711.gd25...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: how to manage d/changelog for updated but not yet sponsored package
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Ben Finney , 2012-02-13, 13:40:
>>> I want to keep trace of it in the d/changelog by keeping my first
>>> version entry and adding a second entry. Can I do that ? Will it
>>> confuse some Debian robots ?
>>
>> It's fine. I consider uploading the package to ‘mentors.debian.net’
>> a release of the package, since at that point interested people
>> (e.g. reviewers) can rely on it, and the version should refer
>> uniquely to what I uploaded at that time.
>>
>> Be aware, though, that some people disagree (on the grounds that
>> it's not a new version until it enters Debian).
>
> I believe that vast majority of sponsors disagree.
Personally, I like the middleground best (though, I haven't been
practicsing this yet, but this is how things would work in my ideal
world): upload to mentors.d.n with incremental versions (when it makes
sense; if the reviewer/potential sponsor spots a bug in a version not
announced, that version is safe to resue as far as I'm concerned), but
fold it into one entry when uploading to Debian proper.
${VERSION}-${N}~mentors${X} for mentors, ${VERSION}-${N} for Debian
proper. A little more work on both sides, but we get the best of both
worlds with as little of the worst as possible.
--
|8]
--
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/87sjifgcao.fsf@algernon.balabit
Re: how to manage d/changelog for updated but not yet sponsored package
Hi,
> Personally, I like the middleground best (though, I haven't been
> practicsing this yet, but this is how things would work in my ideal
> world): upload to mentors.d.n with incremental versions (when it makes
> sense; if the reviewer/potential sponsor spots a bug in a version not
> announced, that version is safe to resue as far as I'm concerned), but
> fold it into one entry when uploading to Debian proper.
>
> ${VERSION}-${N}~mentors${X} for mentors, ${VERSION}-${N} for Debian
> proper. A little more work on both sides, but we get the best of both
> worlds with as little of the worst as possible.
VCS repo is very helpful in this case. It eliminates the need to increment
the version of the package. And change log will show real history of package
versions in Debian archive.
Best regards,
Boris
--
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/771741329135...@web12.yandex.ru
Re: how to manage d/changelog for updated but not yet sponsored package
On 02/13/2012 07:14 AM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
${VERSION}-${N}~mentors${X} for mentors, ${VERSION}-${N} for Debian
proper. A little more work on both sides, but we get the best of both
worlds with as little of the worst as possible.
+1
--
Stephen M. Webb
--
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/4f39019d.20...@bregmasoft.ca
RFS: trash-cli
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "trash-cli". I talked with Steve Stalcup (the current maintainer, but he's not a DD), with Andrew Starr-Bochicchio (who packaged trash-cli previously on mentors) and with Andrea Francia (the upstream author) and I packaged the latest upstream git snapshot of trash-cli (it's stable). * Package name: trash-cli Version : 0.11.3~git20120112.28653c6-1 Upstream Author : Andrea Francia * URL : https://github.com/andreafrancia/trash-cli * License : GPL-2+ Section : utils It builds those binary packages: trash-cli - command line trashcan utility To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/trash-cli Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/trash-cli/trash-cli_0.11.3~git20120112.28653c6-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, Stefano Karapetsas -- 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/55213893320f523dec89e0c51a561...@karapetsas.com
Re: how to manage d/changelog for updated but not yet sponsored package
Boris Pek writes:
> Hi,
>
>> Personally, I like the middleground best (though, I haven't been
>> practicsing this yet, but this is how things would work in my ideal
>> world): upload to mentors.d.n with incremental versions (when it makes
>> sense; if the reviewer/potential sponsor spots a bug in a version not
>> announced, that version is safe to resue as far as I'm concerned), but
>> fold it into one entry when uploading to Debian proper.
>>
>> ${VERSION}-${N}~mentors${X} for mentors, ${VERSION}-${N} for Debian
>> proper. A little more work on both sides, but we get the best of both
>> worlds with as little of the worst as possible.
>
> VCS repo is very helpful in this case. It eliminates the need to increment
> the version of the package. And change log will show real history of package
> versions in Debian archive.
Depends on the situation. If it's a quick update, and I can followup
within moments, then indeed, there is no reason to increment the version
(see my "when it makes sense" comment above).
But if hours, or even days can pass between iterations, then I much
prefer a new version on mentors. That also has the advantage of me not
neccessarily being a bottle neck, and another sponsor can review it and
perhaps sponsor it too.
--
|8]
--
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/87obt2hpyz.fsf@algernon.balabit
Re: how to manage d/changelog for updated but not yet sponsored package
Le 13/02/2012 à 13:14, Gergely Nagy écrivit :
>
> ${VERSION}-${N}~mentors${X} for mentors, ${VERSION}-${N} for Debian
> proper. A little more work on both sides, but we get the best of both
> worlds with as little of the worst as possible.
Hi,
This scheme is something I was thinking about doing automatically for
mentors (i.e. upload ${VERSION}-${N}, but get back ${VERSION}-${N}~mentors${X}).
This would avoid the current clobbering of files from one upload to the
other, and would allow us to present diffs between subsequent uploads of
the packages.
Cheers,
--
Nicolas Dandrimont
--
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/87wr7qc3hz@poincare.home.olasd.eu
Proable multiarch related problem in finding header file (Was: Problem finding "posix_types_32.h" when using pbuilder on the fis-gtm package)
Hi, just a comment on this: I suspect a multiarch issue and http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/06/msg2.html "Multiarch handling of header files (/usr/include) will require more per-package attention, ..." so Luis is asking for some hints how to deal with this like the need to specify explicite header search path via -I options or something like this. Any more detailed hint than the above would be helpful. Kind regards Andreas. On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote: > Debian-mentors, > > > I'm working on packaging fis-gtm, > > > The configuration files that I'm using are here: > > svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/debian-med/trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm/trunk/debian > > http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/debian-med/trunk/packages/fis-gtm/fis-gtm/trunk/debian/ > > These are setup to get the tarball by using: > >uscan --verbose --force-depends > > I manage to build the package locally by using "debuild", > but, when I use the "pdebuild" command, I get the following > output: > > > - Start the build - > Linux Host 32 > Linux Host linux i386 x86_regs > Source Directory List: sr_linux sr_i386 sr_x86_regs sr_unix_gnp > sr_unix_cm sr_unix_nsb sr_unix sr_port_cm sr_port > make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B' > mkdir -p /tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/pro/map > tcsh -f /tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_unix/gen_gtm_threadgbl_deftypes.csh > /tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B sr_port pro/obj sr_linux sr_i386 > sr_x86_regs sr_unix_gnp sr_unix_cm sr_unix_nsb sr_unix sr_port_cm > sr_port > Entering gen_gtm_threadgbl_deftypes.csh to build gtm_threadgbl_deftypes.h > ~/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/pro/obj ~/fis-gtm-5.4-002B > Replacing /tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_linux/gtm_threadgbl_deftypes.h > ~/fis-gtm-5.4-002B > Exiting gen_gtm_threadgbl_deftypes.csh > make -C /tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/pro/obj > -I/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/pro/obj > -I/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_linux > -I/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_i386 > -I/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_x86_regs > -I/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_unix_gnp > -I/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_unix_cm > -I/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_unix_nsb > -I/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_unix > -I/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_port_cm > -I/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_port -f > /tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/sr_unix/comlist.mk CURRENT_BUILDTYPE=pro > all > Linux Host 32 > Linux Host linux i386 x86_regs > Source Directory List: sr_linux sr_i386 sr_x86_regs sr_unix_gnp > sr_unix_cm sr_unix_nsb sr_unix sr_port_cm sr_port > make[3]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/fis-gtm-5.4-002B/pro/obj' > cc1: note: obsolete option -I- used, please use -iquote instead > /usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/asm/posix_types.h:2:30: fatal error: > posix_types_32.h: No such file or directory > compilation terminated. > cc1: note: obsolete option -I- used, please use -iquote instead > cc1: note: obsolete option -I- used, please use -iquote instead > /usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/asm/posix_types.h:2:30: fatal error: > posix_types_32.h: No such file or directory > compilation terminated. > ... > > and goes on an on, > repeating the error about posix_types_32.h. > > > BTW: Please disregard the message: > > "cc1: note: obsolete option -I- used, please use -iquote instead" > > > This is a known issue, and probably not related to the > problem with posix_types_32.h. I get the same cc1 > warnings when building with "dbuild" and yet in that > case the build is successful. > > I'm doing this in a Virtual Machine, > in which "uname -a" returns: > Linux debian-med 2.6.32-5-686 #1 SMP Mon Jan 16 16:04:25 UTC 2012 i686 > GNU/Linux > > The host of this VM, returns for "uname -a": > Linux macondo 2.6.32-38-generic #83-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jan 4 11:12:07 UTC > 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > Login into pbuilder, it was possible to verify > that the header file is actually there, under: > > ls ./usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/asm/posix* -l > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 92 Feb 6 01:32 > ./usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/asm/posix_types.h > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1316 Feb 6 01:32 > ./usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/asm/posix_types_32.h > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1306 Feb 6 01:32 > ./usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/asm/posix_types_64.h > > I'm having trouble understanding why > is that the build process finds: > >./usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/asm/posix_types.h > > but fails to find > > "posix_types_32.h" > > > Any suggestions will be appreciated, > > > Thanks > > >Luis > > > -- > 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/cabauzprbxvinepvnkjtgcobgobf83ukuy8dvxcy8a7i4yj5...@mail.gmail.com > > -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive
Re: how to manage d/changelog for updated but not yet sponsored package
> Depends on the situation. If it's a quick update, and I can followup > within moments, then indeed, there is no reason to increment the version > (see my "when it makes sense" comment above). > > But if hours, or even days can pass between iterations, then I much > prefer a new version on mentors. That also has the advantage of me not > neccessarily being a bottle neck, and another sponsor can review it and > perhaps sponsor it too. Hmm, another sponsor also could look at commits in VSC to observe changes since last message. Isn't it? Best regards, Boris -- 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/793591329137...@web12.yandex.ru
Bug#659518: Changes to CVS
Dear mentors, Pierre Habouzit (the former maintainer) uploaded the changes to the VCS. (http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/tokyocabinet.git;a=summary) So DDs, please go ahead and please sponsor the upload. Best regards, coldtobi -- 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/20120213132041.9bb442803b...@sv13.net-housting.de
Re: how to manage d/changelog for updated but not yet sponsored package
Boris Pek writes: >> Depends on the situation. If it's a quick update, and I can followup >> within moments, then indeed, there is no reason to increment the version >> (see my "when it makes sense" comment above). >> >> But if hours, or even days can pass between iterations, then I much >> prefer a new version on mentors. That also has the advantage of me not >> neccessarily being a bottle neck, and another sponsor can review it and >> perhaps sponsor it too. > > Hmm, another sponsor also could look at commits in VSC to observe changes > since > last message. Isn't it? Yeah, if they're willing to do that. Personally, I'd rather use mentors.d.n, than a random $VCS repo (even if that repo is under .d.o), because I'm not interested in installing a new VCS, figuring out where the repo is (ok, its in the mail, and in the VCS-* fields, but it's easier to paste a package name than a repo URI, and if I have access to the VCS-* fields, then I have the sources anyway). I'll look at VCS repos if and when I'm already reviewing a package, and am in contact with the maintainer. But if I'm looking at something new, that I haven't looked at before, I find mentors.d.n more convenient, and I won't check it's VCS repo (if any). -- |8] -- 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/87aa4mhlt1.fsf@algernon.balabit
Re: how to manage d/changelog for updated but not yet sponsored package
Nicolas Dandrimont writes:
> Le 13/02/2012 à 13:14, Gergely Nagy écrivit :
>>
>> ${VERSION}-${N}~mentors${X} for mentors, ${VERSION}-${N} for Debian
>> proper. A little more work on both sides, but we get the best of both
>> worlds with as little of the worst as possible.
>
> Hi,
>
> This scheme is something I was thinking about doing automatically for
> mentors (i.e. upload ${VERSION}-${N}, but get back
> ${VERSION}-${N}~mentors${X}).
>
> This would avoid the current clobbering of files from one upload to the
> other, and would allow us to present diffs between subsequent uploads of
> the packages.
I don't think that's a good idea. My wish with the ~mentors${X} would be
that it's used intentionally, when the maintainer changes something, and
uploads a new version, that gets a new changelog entry.
You can't automate this reliably.
To illustrate, here's a changelog snippet meant for mentors:
my-little-pony (1.0-1~mentors2) unstable; urgency=low
* Use debhelper (>= 9) to gain hardened build flags for free.
-- Pony Herder Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:00:00 +0100
my-little-pony (1.0-1~mentors1) unstable; urgency=low
* Initial upload (Closes: #PONIES)
-- Pony Herder Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:00:00 +0100
This makes it clear what changed between ~mentors1 and ~mentors2. But
~mentors2 is fairly pointless when uploading to Debian, so this would
get flattened into:
my-little-pony (1.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
* Initial upload (Closes: #PONIES)
-- Pony Herder Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:00:00 +0100
If you'd automatically turn 1.0-1 into 1.0-1~mentors${X}, you'd have to
do some changelog diffing and altering. That's not going to work.
Plus, it would also prevent the sponsors from building & uploading the
maintainer prepared package without modifications. As a sponsor, I don't
want to modify packages I upload, I will review them, suggest or request
modifications, and let the maintainer do it, update my sources, and work
from there. Automatically munging the version would make this
impossible, or at least very inconvenient.
--
|8]
--
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/8762fahlec.fsf@algernon.balabit
Files permission in the debian directory
Hello, What are the recommended permissions for all the files that reside inside the debian directory ? I've not found any documentation about it, except for debian/rules. Regards, Fred. -- 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/738c194e-7970-483d-a096-05d5e141d...@zimbra75-e12.priv.proxad.net
Re: Files permission in the debian directory
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 04:05:11PM +0100, fre...@free.fr wrote: > What are the recommended permissions for all the files that reside inside the > debian directory ? Usual 644/755 I suppose, what makes you think about different perms? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Files permission in the debian directory
- Mail original - De: "Andrey Rahmatullin" À: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org Envoyé: Lundi 13 Février 2012 16:16:12 Objet: Re: Files permission in the debian directory On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 04:05:11PM +0100, fre...@free.fr wrote: > What are the recommended permissions for all the files that reside inside the > debian directory ? Usual 644/755 I suppose, what makes you think about different perms? -- WBR, wRAR What I especially like to know if this should be group-writable, but maybe it's not important. -- 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/cf6b4c25-eddb-45ae-8732-12c64c3b2...@zimbra75-e12.priv.proxad.net
Re: Files permission in the debian directory
fre...@free.fr writes: > What I especially like to know if this should be group-writable, but > maybe it's not important. They should not be. There is no reason to use anything but 644/755, respectively. -- |8] -- 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/87aa4mg086.fsf@algernon.balabit
Re: Files permission in the debian directory
Ok, thanks. - Mail original - De: "Gergely Nagy" À: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org Envoyé: Lundi 13 Février 2012 17:35:37 Objet: Re: Files permission in the debian directory fre...@free.fr writes: > What I especially like to know if this should be group-writable, but > maybe it's not important. They should not be. There is no reason to use anything but 644/755, respectively. -- |8] -- 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/87aa4mg086.fsf@algernon.balabit -- 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/a2ece7e2-0472-420d-a473-bfe99e287...@zimbra75-e12.priv.proxad.net
Re: Files permission in the debian directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 13.02.2012 17:55, fre...@free.fr wrote: > They should not be. There is no reason to use anything but 644/755, > respectively. Except debehelper in compatibility mode 9. There, debhelper configuration files can be scripts (as you know), which are determined by the +x bit. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPOV+4AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtRVIP/jQt8qm6HrvQVOvt5czkBsj7 d6eS9XpwajbUkx1nySnvy8rYJ1jBoDWxBdDxyI/BTFf/GlKTe5dq1VHL+3rZ9Bbq ffDQzTW3RxuIauye4FYLbrV6pkd4PRItuZ4KD5iwIfoupKb7DvdWGCVXKv72OQBQ 3h+izOfGiLefabfLaHYkU6iq1IcO4wDfP/GMcJeJKyxg3dKcxaAbJ8R/Hbg6v75H x12NaIGqlMMVv88VAjovI3Kr2R5k9K6UOUSJK1jRd9a/RPdENv8bSgShnqsfkIgF HQRxYcqwcbbB7GlxhBGxCSNyVzOsR1ic3DanANlxgdsQYGnXGjtNBo2dkQNUSv84 xKI4FDgwulpGiFrJrmWTHvf81jMmD8y0w3sgCznwBvTqNWWhQgS46YJacvGorAKI c/NR0mctmqU0gcPKjqm7S5f9sYX5iwM7nlucK+BxaXDjGIzj8OrQBQU6XNHwvpAj +k/Y8r0BOEuyKDCmAbJAvTkGJkf2b+ot1cVAiYFEQJdedKtxHydO5jhsPuM/JtjP C88o8obTE4OAYXI9BZrV5BHsoZj1OxdHzrkLhTzmU0Dm2s5rkj+8ZqOOsaWEBDkp aMbwPPGaeNx+2qYx6qAzHLgiAVx9T1cBgPuVilNUH0J6/NiGA7HS9oFld9GadJe+ Llj3DtfGTx+mns3tNQc8 =G9+M -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/4f395fb9.7010...@toell.net
RFS: nginx 1.1.14-1 backport to Debian Squeeze
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nginx". It's a backport of the package which is available on Debian Testing. * Package name: nginx * Version : 1.1.14-1~bpo60+1 * Section : httpd It builds those binary packages: nginx - small, but very powerful and efficient web server and mail proxy nginx-common - small, but very powerful and efficient web server (common files) nginx-doc - small, but very powerful and efficient web server (documentation) nginx-extras - nginx web server with full set of core modules and extras nginx-extras-dbg - Debugging symbols for nginx (extras) nginx-full - nginx web server with full set of core modules nginx-full-dbg - Debugging symbols for nginx (full) nginx-light - nginx web server with minimal set of core modules nginx-light-dbg - Debugging symbols for nginx (light) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/nginx Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/nginx/nginx_1.1.14-1~bpo60+1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Just for information, as specified in the nginx packaging roadmap, the 1.1.14-1 package is proposed for inclusion in the squeeze-backports. Then, the 1.1.17 release will be proposed for inclusion. Kind regards, -- Cyril "Davromaniak" Lavier KeyID 59E9A881 http://www.davromaniak.eu -- 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/4f396975.1000...@davromaniak.eu
Re: RFS: libqsi - second attempt
hello jasem,
i'm not a debian developer myself, so i can't help you with uploading,
nor should you rely solely on my opinion here, but i hope these comments
are helpful both to you and the developer reviewing your package for
upload:
* you already require debhelper 6, is there any reason you don't let it
operate to its full potential by setting debian/compat to 6?
* by adding a (Closes: #656203), you could make the upload automatically
close your itp bug
* the "Support:" paragraph in the COPYING file contains a line that is
typically included in the copyright file ("comes without warranty of
fitness"). i'd include that in debian/copyright too just to be on the
safe side, but don't know if that's a matter of personal preference or
if people more familiar with what needs to be in a copyright file have
a stronger opinion on that.
* the NEWS file is empty. you can tell dh_installdocs, which afaict
installs it automatically, to not install it by passing -X NEWS to it,
but i can't tell exactly where that goes in a cdbs based build
process.
* if, for any other reasons more important than this little item, you
have to increase your debhelper level to 7, you can strip the
debian/tmp off the debian/*.install files, making them more readable
in my opinion.
* there's a number of things lintian still complains about. please run
lintian on your .changes file and see what it says (use -i for
additional information). some things are formal issues that are easy
to fix (copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-lgpl,
wrong-section-according-to-package-name,
extended-description-line-too-long), i don't know exactly about
package-name-doesnt-match-sonames (never happened to me before), and
for binary-without-manpage, i'm afraid you'll have to write at least
very short explanations of what the binaries do and how to use them
(as there are no man pages in the source, but debian requires them).
regards
chrysn
--
There's always a bigger fish.
-- Qui-Gon Jinn
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#659822: RFS: mpd-sima/0.9.0-1 (New upstream version)
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mpd-sima". * Package name: mpd-sima Version : 0.9.0-1~1.gbp3e591f Upstream Author : Jack Kaliko * URL : http://codingteam.net/project/sima * License : GPLv3 Section : sound It builds this binary package: mpd-sima - Automagically add titles to MPD playlist To access further information about this package: http://mentors.debian.net/package/mpd-sima http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mpd-sima.html Alternatively, one can download the package with dget or git-buildpackage: > dget -x > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mpd-sima/mpd-sima_0.9.0-1~1.gbp3e591f.dsc > git clone git://git.debian.org/pkg-multimedia/mpd-sima.git I would be glad if someone could review this package for me. Changes since previous package version are minors. Here are a short list of them: * New upstream release * Simplified rules file * Closes minor bug #637192 The package is not finalized (ie. not ready for upload as I built a git-buildpackage snapshot), this is only for reviewing. Kind regards, Geoffroy Youri Berret -- 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/4f398aaa.9050...@azylum.org
Re: how to manage d/changelog for updated but not yet sponsored package
* Charles Plessy , 2012-02-13, 20:07: I consider uploading the package to ‘mentors.debian.net’ a release of the package, since at that point interested people (e.g. reviewers) can rely on it, and the version should refer uniquely to what I uploaded at that time. Be aware, though, that some people disagree (on the grounds that it's not a new version until it enters Debian). I believe that vast majority of sponsors disagree. Note however that the FTP team does not reject such packages. What kind of argument is that? -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20120213223622.gb1...@jwilk.net
Re: RFS: themole
hello raúl,
i'm not a debian developer myself, so i can't help you with uploading,
nor should you rely solely on my opinion here, but i hope these comments
are helpful both to you and the developer reviewing your package for
upload:
* as your upstream tarball contains the whole python-chardet module,
that should be acknowledged in the copyright file; you can quote from
python-chardet's. (whether or not to remove the duplicate data from
the tarball is a question i've yet to get answered for my opencsg
package too; preferably, upstreams would just not do that, but that's
their decision).
* installing by just copying python files to /usr/share/themole is far
from elegant. there is no byte-compilation of files, unless themole
gets invoked by root (which in term is a bad thing itself as
/usr/share gets written to at run time, and it is not cleaned up on
uninstall).
a simple --with python3 after "dh $@" won't do by itself either.
you could add a rather simple setup.py file to make a bunch of
automatisms kick in (or rather not ... until bug #597105 is solved, it
needs some kickstarting, but then it works), but the upstream package
is not really prepared for that, and the installation would behave
badly in some namespaces. ("import exceptions", from any python
module, would import thmeole's exceptions. the main script would still
be called mole.py, and debian doesn't like that.) see the attached
minimal-setuppy.patch, which shows how it's done. (the setup.py is not
a particularly good example of how to write one, just a very simple
one).
the cleaner solution would be to re-organize the source files into a
more pythonic structure as described in [1] together with upstream.
it's basically moving files around, making sure the import statements
still go where they should (as it's python3, you can use relative
imports without worrying about compatibility), and slimming down
mole.py to the bare essentials (imo, it should be no more than
from mole.commandline import run; if __name == "__main__": run()
-- more or less).
.. [1]:
http://as.ynchrono.us/2007/12/filesystem-structure-of-python-project_21.html
* there seems to be a -p option that is not documented in the man page.
* your package is lintian clean. the only complaint on pedantic (!)
level is unversioned-copyright-format-uri for your dep5 format, and
afict there is no consensus yet on how this should be done exactly.
regards
chrysn
--
Beware paths which narrow future possibilities. Such paths divert you
from infinity into lethal traps.
-- Leto Atreides II
diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
index 6046ead..17fe0a3 100644
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -2,9 +2,10 @@ Source: themole
Section: web
Priority: extra
Maintainer: Raúl Benencia
-Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9.0.0)
+Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9.0.0), python3
Standards-Version: 3.9.2
Homepage: http://themole.nasel.com.ar
+X-Python-Version: >= 3.0
Package: themole
Architecture: all
diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
index ed933e6..65dfb5c 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -2,4 +2,12 @@
#export DH_VERBOSE=1
%:
- dh $@
+ dh $@ --with python3
+
+# everything below this line is only required because of 597105
+
+override_dh_auto_clean:
+ python3 setup.py clean -a
+
+override_dh_auto_install:
+ python3 setup.py install --force --root=debian/themole --no-compile -O0 --install-layout=deb
diff --git a/debian/themole.install b/debian/themole.install
deleted file mode 100644
index a4371ef..000
--- a/debian/themole.install
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
-*py usr/share/themole/
-dbmsmoles/* usr/share/themole/dbmsmoles/
-htmlfilters/* usr/share/themole/htmlfilters/
-queryfilters/* usr/share/themole/queryfilters
-
-
diff --git a/debian/themole.links b/debian/themole.links
deleted file mode 100644
index dd8d35b..000
--- a/debian/themole.links
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-usr/share/themole/mole.py /usr/bin/themole
diff --git a/setup.py b/setup.py
new file mode 100644
index 000..fb4efc6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/setup.py
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+
+from distutils.core import setup
+
+setup(
+name='themole',
+version='0.2.6',
+py_modules=[
+'commands',
+'completion',
+'connection',
+'datadumper',
+'dbdump',
+'domanalyser',
+'exceptions',
+'filters',
+'injectioninspector',
+'output',
+'themole',
+'threader',
+'xmlexporter',
+'dbmsmoles.dbmsmole',
+'dbmsmoles.mysql',
+'dbmsmoles.oracle',
+'dbmsmoles.postgres',
+'dbmsmoles.sqlserver',
+'htmlfilters.base',
+'htmlfilters.genericfilters',
+'queryfilters.base',
+'queryfilters.genericfilters',
+],
+scripts=['mole.py'],
+
Re: Files permission in the debian directory
Arno Töll writes: > Except debehelper in compatibility mode 9. There, debhelper > configuration files can be scripts (as you know), which are determined > by the +x bit. That's covered by 755. But executable dh files are not for the faint of heart, nor for beginners who need to ask these questions, so I intentionally didn't mention them. -- O8] -- 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/87fweeb9n1@luthien.mhp
Re: RFS: themole
* installing by just copying python files to /usr/share/themole is far from elegant. Uh? This is the idiomatic way to install Python applications. there is no byte-compilation of files, unless themole gets invoked by root (which in term is a bad thing itself as /usr/share gets written to at run time, and it is not cleaned up on uninstall). a simple --with python3 after "dh $@" won't do by itself either. Yes, it would. dh_python3 does care of bytecompiling stuff in /usr/share/$packagename/ (even though it's not documented, sigh). -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20120213233144.ga7...@jwilk.net
Re: Files permission in the debian directory
Le Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 04:05:11PM +0100, fre...@free.fr a écrit : > > > What are the recommended permissions for all the files that reside inside the > debian directory ? > I've not found any documentation about it, except for debian/rules. Dear Fred, the Dpkg source format version 1.0 does not support other files than debian/rules to be executable, so I recommend that unless strictly needed, you do not rely on files in debian/ to be executable, especially if you suspect that your package might be backported by users on local installations that are too old for supporting the 3.0 (quilt) format. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20120213235945.ga9...@falafel.plessy.net
pbuilder: howto unset CONFIG_SITE
Hello List: I am beginning to play with pbuilder by following th maint-guide: right now my p[ersonal ]building is polluted by my CONFIG_SITE: what is the best way to discard it from the pbuilder machinery ? Thanks in advance, Jerome -- 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/4f39cdb7.3090...@rezozer.net
notify command
Dear all, I'm preparing matterial and need to notify command in debian.I guess it's renamed, do you know its new name? --mohsen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: pbuilder: howto unset CONFIG_SITE
Hello Again: It appears that CONFIG_SITE is used by dpkg-builpackage: the issue can be easily overcome by using debuild instead as debuild unset CONFIG_SITE. Can pbuilder use debuild instead of dpkg-builpackage ? Thanks, Jerome On 14/02/12 03:57, Jerome BENOIT wrote: Hello List: I am beginning to play with pbuilder by following th maint-guide: right now my p[ersonal ]building is polluted by my CONFIG_SITE: what is the best way to discard it from the pbuilder machinery ? Thanks in advance, Jerome -- 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/4f39e019.5020...@rezozer.net
Re: pbuilder: howto unset CONFIG_SITE
Hi: On 14/02/12 05:16, Jerome BENOIT wrote: Hello Again: It appears that CONFIG_SITE is used by dpkg-builpackage: the issue can be easily overcome by using debuild instead as debuild unset CONFIG_SITE. Can pbuilder use debuild instead of dpkg-builpackage ? This is a silly question as pbuilder is an alternative to debuild. So, in fact, as debuild, pbuilder may sanitize the environment. Sorry for the noise, Jerome Thanks, Jerome On 14/02/12 03:57, Jerome BENOIT wrote: Hello List: I am beginning to play with pbuilder by following th maint-guide: right now my p[ersonal ]building is polluted by my CONFIG_SITE: what is the best way to discard it from the pbuilder machinery ? Thanks in advance, Jerome -- 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/4f39ef6e.70...@rezozer.net
