Re: watch file help

Ben Hutchings writes: > On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 12:07 -0500, Chris wrote: > > Simply having http://www.foo.com/ihave/files/here/foo-(.*)\.tar\.gz > > in the debian/watch files downloads an html file. > > Something like: > > opts=filenamemangle=s/\?format=raw$// \ > http://www.foo.com/ihave/

Re: watch file help

On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 12:07 -0500, Chris wrote: > Greetings everyone, > > I am trying to set my debian/watch correctly. The upstream > site allows you to download (wget for example) with something like: > > wget http://www.foo.com/ihave/files/here/foo.tar.gz > > However, the source code behind U

Re: why are there /bin and /usr/bin...

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:45:04PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Of course,.. but only because your /usr is on the root-fs. > > And there are many good reasons to put it on its own fs, as already > outlayed here... [...] No disagreement there... I'm much in favor of continuing to suppo

Re: Bug#593339: RFP: freeorion -- FreeOrion is a free, open source, turn-based space empire and galactic conquest computer game

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 02:57:56PM +0400, Roman V. Nikolaev wrote: >Package name: freeorion > URL: http://www.freeorion.org > License: GPL 2 I investigated this, and here are my findings: * it needs two unpackaged libraries: + libgigi -- seems straightforward, and with n

watch file help

Greetings everyone, I am trying to set my debian/watch correctly. The upstream site allows you to download (wget for example) with something like: wget http://www.foo.com/ihave/files/here/foo.tar.gz However, the source code behind URL shows this: http://www.foo.com/ihave/files/here/foo.tar.gz?fo

Re: conflicting with a package that has a binary with the same name ?

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jérémy Lal wrote: > On 21/08/2010 15:00, Julien Cristau wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 14:23:19 +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote: >> >>> But nodejs is getting more popular, and renaming its binary to nodejs >>> will probably upset many users. Is it legitimate to keep /us

Re: conflicting with a package that has a binary with the same name ?

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 18:25:10 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > You could use the alternative system. > No he can't. The programs have entirely unrelated functionality, AIUI. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: conflicting with a package that has a binary with the same name ?

On 21/08/2010 15:00, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 14:23:19 +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote: > >> But nodejs is getting more popular, and renaming its binary to nodejs >> will probably upset many users. Is it legitimate to keep /usr/bin/node, >> and Conflict: node ? >> > No, it's not. B

Re: conflicting with a package that has a binary with the same name ?

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 14:23:19 +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote: > But nodejs is getting more popular, and renaming its binary to nodejs > will probably upset many users. Is it legitimate to keep /usr/bin/node, > and Conflict: node ? > No, it's not. Best would be to convince your upstream to use a less

conflicting with a package that has a binary with the same name ?

Hi, i'm packaging nodejs [0], and had to rename the /usr/bin/node binary to /usr/bin/nodejs, to avoid conflict with /usr/sbin/node from the "node" package [1]. But nodejs is getting more popular, and renaming its binary to nodejs will probably upset many users. Is it legitimate to keep /usr/bin/nod

Bug#593816: ITP: wah-plugins -- auto-wah LADSPA plugin

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Alessio Treglia * Package name: wah-plugins Version : 0.0.2 Upstream Author : Fons Adriaensen * URL : http://www.kokkinizita.net/linuxaudio/ladspa/index.html * License : GPL Programming Lang: C++ Description : a