contemplations of libelf

Well, after a lot of fiddling and hacking and threatening of dpkg, I finally managed to get libelf compiling with 2.1.1.0 compliant sources. Before I upload it, though, I want a few things cleared up: 1) Should I rename the package to libelf0 (Replaces: and Conflicts: libelf) in the same

Bug#4530: ld cannot find most shared libraries

Package: ldso Version: 1.8.2-1 I've recently had problems linking programs non-statically with (e.g.) the X11 libraries, etc. Static libraries are fine, shared have problems. Upon investigation, and discussion with a friend, it appears that ld cannot find files of the form: libfoo.so.1

vim 4.2?

I've received a few emails since I took over vim, asking if vim 4.2 has yet been packaged in debian format. The stock response has been that, since 4.2 introduced a condition - distribute vim on a CD-ROM, and you should/must send me a copy of that CD-ROM - I decided not to. Would it perhaps be

Bug#4272: ncftp core dumping

It didn't core dump on me, but it _did_ start going into an infinite loop when the xterm reached around 180 columns. On investigation, the problem appears to be the typedef: typedef string char[160]; If the xterm is wider than around 160 characters, overruns start to occur. This is Not a Good

fsp_2.71-3 and libelf_0.5.2-1 uploaded

I've finally got around to doing these. I'm not entirely sure that libelf belongs in devel, but since nobody has responded to my queries on this matter... shrug. Bug me if I'm wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Date: 23 Aug 96 11:07 UT Format: 1.6 Distribution: unstable Urgency: Low

Re: Uploaded: mount 2.5l-1

[snipped] Urgency: Low ^^^ Where a security fix is involved, shouldn't the urgency be a little bit higher than low? (especially where the problem affects many systems.)

Location for libelf?

Ok, I've fiddled around, and have reached the stage where I can upload libelf to master. The one question I have is: should it go into contrib, or devel? Currently, the library is considered to be in alpha stages - it's definitely usable, but there you are. I seem to recall that alpha stuff

Re: Bug#4078: lynx should be in `contrib'

Michael Meskes wrote: Ian Jackson writes: No, because packages which depend on contrib packages must go in contrib too. Hmm, that wasn't what was said a while ago when we moved xforms. I'd like to ask the other developers what they think. While I see th elogic behind your approach I

Re: New virtual packages suggestion (make)

The problem with this approach is that it breaks everything that assumes that make is the GNU make - for instance, the kernel. And probably several debian.rules files. It would probably be a fair assumption to say that make, under Linux, is GNU make: the average user would have this

unzip_5.12-13 uploaded to master

Hmm. Forgot to mention that there's a new maintainer. Oh, well. -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Date: 03 Aug 96 09:31 UT Format: 1.6 Distribution: unstable Urgency: Low Maintainer: Stuart Lamble [EMAIL PROTECTED] Source: unzip Version: 5.12-13 Binary: unzip Architecture: i386 source

zip_2.01-13 uploaded to master

Another one that I forgot to mention the new maintainer in...oh, well, put it down to a late night. :-) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Date: 03 Aug 96 09:37 UT Format: 1.6 Distribution: unstable Urgency: Low Maintainer: Stuart Lamble [EMAIL PROTECTED] Source: zip Version: 2.01-13 Binary: zip

vim_3.0-6 uploaded to master

Hopefully, this will be the last modifications made to vim 3.0 - version 4.2 is out (with restrictions on distribution on CDs), and 4.3 is due in a few weeks (without those restrictions). I'll be upgrading the sources to 4.3 when it's released. -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Date: 02 Aug 96

XF86 betas (Re: D68K: The next step...)

llucius wrote: Actually, I've not gotten to The Next Step yet anyway. I finally bit the bullet and downloaded XFree86 (whew!), compiled it, and am now going through all the X related packages. Speaking of X, as a member of the beta team (XFree86), I have access to the source code for the

Re: XF86 betas (Re: D68K: The next step...)

Mr Stuart Lamble writes: annoyed that if I want support for my W32p (revision A), I have to go to 3.1.2E - and it's not available for Debian. Net result: either I have proper support for my card, and can't install new X-based packages (dpkg barfs at the postinst and configuration stages

Bug#4003: minor typo in dchanges

Package: dchanges Version: 3.4 If dchanges finds an old style file name, it gives the following messages: Deb file ok: libelf-dev_0.5.2-1_i386.deb Deb file ok: libelf_0.5.2-1_i386.deb WARNING: old style file name: libelf-0.5.2-1.tar.gz should be: libelf_0.5.2-1.deb WARNING: old style