Bug#285681: ITP: libxbox-dev -- Libxbox-dev provides the headers for libxbox0 and the libxbox.so symlink
Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2004-12-14 Severity: wishlist * Package name: libxbox-dev Version : 0.1.0 Upstream Author : David Pye [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.xbox-linux.org * License : GPL Description : Libxbox-dev provides the headers for libxbox0 and the libxbox.so symlink As title. See the recent ITP for libxbox0 for more information about what libxbox provides. (Bug#285617) -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux titanium 2.4.26-xbox #1 Thu Jul 8 19:42:03 BST 2004 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Bug#285681: ITP: libxbox-dev -- Libxbox-dev provides the headers for libxbox0 and the libxbox.so symlink
First, please don't send mails to the BTS with a local address. Le mardi 14 décembre 2004 à 20:06 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2004-12-14 Severity: wishlist * Package name: libxbox-dev Version : 0.1.0 Upstream Author : David Pye [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.xbox-linux.org * License : GPL Description : Libxbox-dev provides the headers for libxbox0 and the libxbox.so symlink As title. See the recent ITP for libxbox0 for more information about what libxbox provides. (Bug#285617) Why do you need to make it a separate source package? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Bug#285681: ITP: libxbox-dev -- Libxbox-dev provides the headers for libxbox0 and the libxbox.so symlink
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 23:35, Josselin Mouette wrote: Why do you need to make it a separate source package? No, no, ignore my last email. I 'get it' now. It for some reason escaped my notice that the ITP needed only to be raised against the source package, and not the multiple binary packages it would spawn. D'oh. Sorry, I'll close this spurious ITP. David -- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s-: a-- C++ UL P L+++ E--- W++ N+ o+ K- w--- O M V- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP t 5- X+ R- tv+ b+ DI++ D+ G+ e++ h--- r++ y++ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
Bug#285681: ITP: libxbox-dev -- Libxbox-dev provides the headers for libxbox0 and the libxbox.so symlink
Hi, On Tuesday 14 December 2004 23:35, Josselin Mouette wrote: First, please don't send mails to the BTS with a local address. Le mardi 14 décembre 2004 à 20:06 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a Yes, how I cursed that one, once I realised it had got out. I sent three ITPs, and one made it out wrong. I knew some one would spot it, nonetheless ;) snip * Package name: libxbox-dev Version : 0.1.0 Upstream Author : David Pye [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.xbox-linux.org * License : GPL Description : Libxbox-dev provides the headers for libxbox0 and the libxbox.so symlink snip again Why do you need to make it a separate source package? Ah. So that's what I did wrong, maybe. The two packages build from the same source. Does that mean a single ITP is necessary? I have not raised ITPs before, so was not sure exactly. One question this raises in my mind: suppose I have a single source tar.gz, that I want to build into four debian binary packages, with different names (obviously). If this should require only one ITP, which package name should the ITP be made for? David -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s-: a-- C++ UL P L+++ E--- W++ N+ o+ K- w--- O M V- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP t 5- X+ R- tv+ b+ DI++ D+ G+ e++ h--- r++ y++ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
Bug#285681: ITP: libxbox-dev -- Libxbox-dev provides the headers for libxbox0 and the libxbox.so symlink
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:49:55PM +, David Pye wrote: Ah. So that's what I did wrong, maybe. The two packages build from the same source. Does that mean a single ITP is necessary? I have not raised ITPs before, so was not sure exactly. That's it. With a few rare exceptions (that don't apply here), we file exactly one ITP per source. One question this raises in my mind: suppose I have a single source tar.gz, that I want to build into four debian binary packages, with different names (obviously). If this should require only one ITP, which package name should the ITP be made for? Debian source packages also have a name. We normaly use that for the ITP. For simple 1:1 packages the source name is usualy the same as the binary name, but that's absolutely not a requisite. For example, the xfree86 source package provides a gazillon of binary packages but there's no xfree86 binary package as such (And soon won't be any xfree86 at all anyway ;). -- .''`. Proudly running Debian GNU/kFreeBSD unstable/unreleased (on UFS2+S) : :' : `. `'http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu `-
