Personally, I would use the source package's version # in this case. The
docs may be fairly version-dependent (i.e. openacs 4.0 may change a great
deal of things, and openacs-docs 4.0 would document the new interfaces), so
sharing version numbers makes it much clearer...
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 02
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 11:01:52PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> I read on -devel that compiling packages with g++ 3 is problematic
> since they will not correctly link with C++ libraries built with an
> older compiler. I figure this will not be a problem for my package
> because it does not de
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From undocumented(7):
>
> | This program, utility or function does not have a useful
> | manpage. Please do not report this as a bug, because this
> | has already been reported as a bug; when a manpage becomes
But if undocumented(7) is
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> It has been signed conforming to RFC2015.
> You'll need PGP or GPG to check the signature.
>
> =_994626186-1074-2
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> "Greg Wiley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The question is: which do
On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 at 20:21:09 +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important).
> > It seems sensible to allow users to remove this package without
> > breaking anything, and if they care enough to rem
Personally, I would use the source package's version # in this case. The
docs may be fairly version-dependent (i.e. openacs 4.0 may change a great
deal of things, and openacs-docs 4.0 would document the new interfaces), so
sharing version numbers makes it much clearer...
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 08 July 2001 9:57 pm, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:06:31 -0400, Steve M. Robbins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Making a package involves "installing" it!
> >
> > You had better re-read the packaging manual. The New Maintai
Hi,
I recently adopted openacs package.
Upstream FTP site provides 2 packages : openacs-3.2.5.tar.gz and
openacs-3.2.5-docs.tar.gz.
How should I version-number the doc package ? Would openacs-docs_1.0 be OK or
shoud I try to stick to binaries package version for now and the future ?
Thanks.
--
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 01:55:35AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 01:04:49 +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > What DH_COMPAT are you using ?
>
> I was using DH_COMPAT=2 as you told me in another question, now i've been
> told that
> when using the debi
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 11:01:52PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> I read on -devel that compiling packages with g++ 3 is problematic
> since they will not correctly link with C++ libraries built with an
> older compiler. I figure this will not be a problem for my package
> because it does not d
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 01:04:49 +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> What DH_COMPAT are you using ?
I was using DH_COMPAT=2 as you told me in another question, now i've been told
that
when using the debian/tmp directory i need DH_COMPAT=1 (i noticed you are using
debian/ director
What DH_COMPAT are you using ?
PD : tienes tu clave firmada ya ?
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 02:13:31PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm having some trouble in packaging a program called "esms". It only
> consists of a single binary-all (perl) file
> that must go on /usr/bin/esms. The p
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From undocumented(7):
>
> | This program, utility or function does not have a useful
> | manpage. Please do not report this as a bug, because this
> | has already been reported as a bug; when a manpage becomes
But if undocumented(7) is
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> It has been signed conforming to RFC2015.
> You'll need PGP or GPG to check the signature.
>
> =_994626186-1074-2
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> "Greg Wiley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The question is: which d
On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 at 20:21:09 +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important).
> > It seems sensible to allow users to remove this package without
> > breaking anything, and if they care enough to re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 08 July 2001 9:57 pm, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:06:31 -0400, Steve M. Robbins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Making a package involves "installing" it!
> >
> > You had better re-read the packaging manual. The New Mainta
Hi,
I recently adopted openacs package.
Upstream FTP site provides 2 packages : openacs-3.2.5.tar.gz and
openacs-3.2.5-docs.tar.gz.
How should I version-number the doc package ? Would openacs-docs_1.0 be OK or
shoud I try to stick to binaries package version for now and the future ?
Thanks.
-
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 01:55:35AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 01:04:49 +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What DH_COMPAT are you using ?
>
> I was using DH_COMPAT=2 as you told me in another question, now i've been told that
> when using the debian/tm
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 01:04:49 +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What DH_COMPAT are you using ?
I was using DH_COMPAT=2 as you told me in another question, now i've been told that
when using the debian/tmp directory i need DH_COMPAT=1 (i noticed you are using
debian/ directory
I have a package (exult) using C++. It reportedly does not work very
good on certain architectures when compiled with g++ 2.95, so I want
to move it to g++ 3.0.
I read on -devel that compiling packages with g++ 3 is problematic
since they will not correctly link with C++ libraries built with an
ol
"Greg Wiley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question is: which do I do first, announce my intentions to
> debian-devel or submit a new main- tainer application? The
> application seems to want me to announce. Other docs seem to
> indicate that I should become a maintainer first.
You can become
[I think Colin reads this list, but CCing @packages to be sure.]
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important). It seems
> sensible to allow users to remove this package without breaking anything, and
> if they care enough to remove
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:06:31 -0400, Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Making a package involves "installing" it!
>
> You had better re-read the packaging manual. The New Maintainer's
> Guide http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ is quite good.
But the maint-guide tells me to modi
What DH_COMPAT are you using ?
PD : tienes tu clave firmada ya ?
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 02:13:31PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm having some trouble in packaging a program called "esms". It only consists of a
>single binary-all (perl) file
> that must go on /usr/bin/esms. The p
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 08:57:38PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:51:31 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
> >
> > Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
> > 'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
> >
> On Sun
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:51:31 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
>
> Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
> 'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
>
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 13:08:57 -0400, Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
I have a package (exult) using C++. It reportedly does not work very
good on certain architectures when compiled with g++ 2.95, so I want
to move it to g++ 3.0.
I read on -devel that compiling packages with g++ 3 is problematic
since they will not correctly link with C++ libraries built with an
o
"Greg Wiley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question is: which do I do first, announce my intentions to
> debian-devel or submit a new main- tainer application? The
> application seems to want me to announce. Other docs seem to
> indicate that I should become a maintainer first.
You can becom
[I think Colin reads this list, but CCing @packages to be sure.]
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important). It seems
> sensible to allow users to remove this package without breaking anything, and
> if they care enough to remov
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:06:31 -0400, Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Making a package involves "installing" it!
>
> You had better re-read the packaging manual. The New Maintainer's
> Guide http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ is quite good.
But the maint-guide tells me to mo
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 12:51:31PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
>
> Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
> 'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
Also, set --mandir=/usr/share/man and --infodir=/usr/share/info, if
applicabl
Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:39:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm modifiing a Makefile.in to got rid of the "/usr/local" but i have some
I just wanted to contribute a note: instead of alien'ing your package
to get a listing of it's contents, use the 'dpkg -c' command on your deb.
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 02:13:31PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm having some trouble in packaging a program called "esms". It only
> cons
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 08:57:38PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:51:31 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
> >
> > Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
> > 'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
> >
> On Su
Hello,
I'm modifiing a Makefile.in to got rid of the "/usr/local" but i have some
doubts.
Makefile.in
SHELL = @SHELL@
srcdir = @srcdir@
top_srcdir = @top_srcdir@
VPATH = @srcdir@
prefix = @prefix@
exec_prefix = @exec_prefix@
bindir = @bindir@
sbindir = @sbindir@
libexecdir
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:51:31 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
>
> Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
> 'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
>
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 13:08:57 -0400, Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:23:37PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Actually, the reason I ask is because I *did* miss undocumented(7), without
> realising it. In fact, a bug almost got filed against an entirely unrelated
> package for not having man pages for its binaries, when in reality it had
> syml
Hello,
I've packaged esms (esms.sourceforge.net), anyone could sponsor it?
thanks,
--
Robert MillanDebian GNU (Hurd) user
zeratul2 wanadoo eshttp://getyouriso.org/
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 12:51:31PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
>
> Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
> 'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
Also, set --mandir=/usr/share/man and --infodir=/usr/share/info, if
applicab
Use the --prefix=/usr option to ./configure
Then when running 'make install' do this instead:
'make install prefix=/path/to/temporary/directory'
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:39:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm modifiing a Makefile.in to got rid of the "/usr/local" but i have some
I just wanted to contribute a note: instead of alien'ing your package
to get a listing of it's contents, use the 'dpkg -c' command on your deb.
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 02:13:31PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm having some trouble in packaging a program called "esms". It only consis
Hello,
I'm modifiing a Makefile.in to got rid of the "/usr/local" but i have some doubts.
Makefile.in
SHELL = @SHELL@
srcdir = @srcdir@
top_srcdir = @top_srcdir@
VPATH = @srcdir@
prefix = @prefix@
exec_prefix = @exec_prefix@
bindir = @bindir@
sbindir = @sbindir@
libexecdir
On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 13:25:50 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) wrote:
>
> You aren't using DH_COMPAT=2 or 3, are you? When that is set, the
> various debhelper commands (like dh_installdocs, which is installing
> your documentation, and dh_builddeb, which calls dpkg to construct the
> ..deb
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:23:37PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Actually, the reason I ask is because I *did* miss undocumented(7), without
> realising it. In fact, a bug almost got filed against an entirely unrelated
> package for not having man pages for its binaries, when in reality it had
> syml
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:23:37PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Actually, the reason I ask is because I *did* miss undocumented(7), without
> realising it. In fact, a bug almost got filed against an entirely unrelated
> package for not having man pages for its binaries, when in reality it had
> sym
Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thus spoke Sergio Talens-Oliag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 2001-07-03 11:02:12:
>> * If this happens to me again, shoud I move all the 'Close' tags on the
>> REJECTED package to the last version?
>
>I saw something like this in some packages:
>
> * Fixed i
Hello,
I've packaged esms (esms.sourceforge.net), anyone could sponsor it?
thanks,
--
Robert MillanDebian GNU (Hurd) user
zeratul2 wanadoo eshttp://getyouriso.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PRO
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm having some trouble in packaging a program called "esms". It only
>consists of a single binary-all (perl) file that must go on
>/usr/bin/esms. The problem is that the package is created without it,
>here's a snapshot of an alienized package:
[...]
>inst
Hello,
I'm having some trouble in packaging a program called "esms". It only consists
of a single binary-all (perl) file
that must go on /usr/bin/esms. The problem is that the package is created
without it, here's a snapshot
of an alienized package:
bash-2.03$ tar -xvzf esms-0.9.0-2.tgz
./
./u
On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 13:25:50 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) wrote:
>
> You aren't using DH_COMPAT=2 or 3, are you? When that is set, the
> various debhelper commands (like dh_installdocs, which is installing
> your documentation, and dh_builddeb, which calls dpkg to construct the
> ..deb
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 06:23:37PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Actually, the reason I ask is because I *did* miss undocumented(7), without
> realising it. In fact, a bug almost got filed against an entirely unrelated
> package for not having man pages for its binaries, when in reality it had
> sym
Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thus spoke Sergio Talens-Oliag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 2001-07-03 11:02:12:
>> * If this happens to me again, shoud I move all the 'Close' tags on the
>> REJECTED package to the last version?
>
>I saw something like this in some packages:
>
> * Fixed
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm having some trouble in packaging a program called "esms". It only
>consists of a single binary-all (perl) file that must go on
>/usr/bin/esms. The problem is that the package is created without it,
>here's a snapshot of an alienized package:
[...]
>ins
Hello,
I'm having some trouble in packaging a program called "esms". It only consists of a
single binary-all (perl) file
that must go on /usr/bin/esms. The problem is that the package is created without it,
here's a snapshot
of an alienized package:
bash-2.03$ tar -xvzf esms-0.9.0-2.tgz
./
./
[ CC:'ed to Nicolás Lichtmaier as maintainer of manpages ]
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important). It seems
> sensible to allow users to remove this package without breaking anything, and
> if they care enough to remove the
[ CC:'ed to Nicolás Lichtmaier as maintainer of manpages ]
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> undocumented(7) is in the manpages package (Priority: important). It seems
> sensible to allow users to remove this package without breaking anything, and
> if they care enough to remove the
56 matches
Mail list logo
