Re: Failed to stop defining RPATH in libncl

On 04/01/16 11:40, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi, I'm trying to package libncl[1] but I failed to fight the following lintian error: E: ncl-tools: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath usr/bin/NCLconverter /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ncl I deactivated my quilt patches and the override_dh_auto_configure

Re: (newbie) Disruptive LIRC package update.

On 10/11/15 14:49, Andrew Shadura wrote: > On 10/11/15 13:39, Alec Leamas wrote: >> On 10/11/15 13:26, Andrew Shadura wrote: >> >>>> I think migrating from old config to a new config in a postinst is okay >>>> as long as you keep the old config and

Re: Putting default config files in /usr [was; (newbie) Disruptive LIRC package update.]

On 11/11/15 10:37, Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:24:52 -0800, Josh Triplett > wrote: >> Vincent Danjean wrote: > I violently disagree. We have always done it the other way, and had > the advantage that our conffile handling (which used to be and IMO > still is

Re: Putting default config files in /usr [was; (newbie) Disruptive LIRC package update.]

On 11/11/15 13:28, Marc Haber wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:04:01 +0100, Alec Leamas <leamas.a...@gmail.com> wrote: On 11/11/15 10:37, Marc Haber wrote: On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:24:52 -0800, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote: Vincent Danjean wrote: I violently disag

Re: (newbie) Disruptive LIRC package update.

On 11/11/15 15:17, Vincent Danjean wrote: Le 11/11/2015 10:37, Alec Leamas a écrit : However, it touches one possible route: to store the original vendor files separately and create the actually used config files in postinst. ucf has been written for this. Do not reinvent the wheel, use ucf

Re: (newbie) Disruptive LIRC package update.

On 09/11/15 17:44, Alec Leamas wrote: > On 08/11/15 19:28, Dominique Dumont wrote: >> On Sunday 08 November 2015 15:19:30 Alec Leamas wrote: > So, this is a change, yes. But in the long run, wouldn't we be better > off by sticking to upstream's way of doing it instead of runni

Re: (newbie) Disruptive LIRC package update.

On 10/11/15 13:26, Andrew Shadura wrote: > I think migrating from old config to a new config in a postinst is okay > as long as you keep the old config and complain to the user that a > manual verification may be needed. > > As least ifupdown did that a couple of times, and nobody complained :)

Re: (newbie) Disruptive LIRC package update.

On 10/11/15 14:49, Andrew Shadura wrote: > On 10/11/15 13:39, Alec Leamas wrote: >> On 10/11/15 13:26, Andrew Shadura wrote: > I think you can try to do it systemd way: keep the default configuration > in /usr/lib, and leave /etc for local user configuration which overrides >

Re: (newbie) Disruptive LIRC package update.

On 08/11/15 19:28, Dominique Dumont wrote: > On Sunday 08 November 2015 15:19:30 Alec Leamas wrote: >> Some tooling to build the new configuration from the old will indeed be >> required. This is actually some work - it includes a complete lircd >> command line parser with

Re: (newbie) Disruptive LIRC package update.

On 07/11/15 10:05, Dominique Dumont wrote: > On Friday 06 November 2015 18:48:29 Alec Leamas wrote: >> So, an upgrade will not support hardware.conf. Which basically breaks >> each and every installation. While we could (i. e., should) provide docs >> and perhaps some toolin

(newbie) Disruptive LIRC package update.

Dear list, I am in the process on creating a new lirc packaging. The core reason is that current debian version is stalled at 0.9.0 as of 2011 whereas the upstream version is 0.9.3, with 0.9.4 under way. My plan is to try to package 0.9.4. Besides the more practical issues here is a big

<    1   2