Dear Neil,
I have a new package ready at:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libitpp/libitpp_3.99.2-1.dsc
On 01/07/07, Neil Williams wrote:
A -dbg package needs to be provided.
(-dbg packages are likely to become mandatory by Lenny.)
Done this.
In practical terms, not all
On 02/07/07, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
I have a new package ready at:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libitpp/libitpp_3.99.2-1.dsc
And I just spoke to upstream about this issue. The author has assured
me that no feature will be missing if I have have LAPACK, BLAS and
FFTW3. This means
[In the event of any reply, please CC me.]
Hi!
I encountered a few silly errors with my package that I could have prevented,
and I wish to share my experiences to the rest.
I had the idea to finally separate the build-dependencies between
Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep in debian/control.
Hi,
* DS [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-02 09:42]:
2007/7/1, Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
The fixes look good.
The package is lintian clean.
It's not please check.
What about this one? It still is not even if the warning is
not that important it should be fixed:
[EMAIL
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:34:42 +0530
Kumar Appaiah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a new package ready at:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libitpp/libitpp_3.99.2-1.dsc
Minor problems:
1. libittp6 describes itself as:
C++ signal processing and communication library: Debug symbols
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:39:20 +0530
Kumar Appaiah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 02/07/07, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
I have a new package ready at:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libitpp/libitpp_3.99.2-1.dsc
And I just spoke to upstream about this issue. The author has assured
me
On 02/07/07, Neil Williams wrote:
Minor problems:
1. libittp6 describes itself as:
C++ signal processing and communication library: Debug symbols
which is the same as libittp6-dbg:
C++ signal processing and communication library: Debug symbols
Remove the : Debug symbols from the description of
On 02/07/07, Neil Williams wrote:
Is this the same cblas as usr/lib/libgslcblas.so.0 in libgsl0
http://packages.debian.org/stable/math/libgsl0
?
This is what I was referring to.
libgsl0 may be large but it doesn't bring in any extraneous
dependencies.
I'll give it a shot.
It only seems
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 15:49:38 +0530
Kumar Appaiah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. debian/changelog: experimental. I'm just checking - is this version
to be uploaded to experimental or is this a hangover from the previous
version? Change to unstable?
Well, the situation is like this: the
2007/7/2, Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
* DS [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-02 09:42]:
2007/7/1, Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
The fixes look good.
The package is lintian clean.
It's not please check.
What about this one? It still is not even if the warning is
not that important it
Hi Denis,
* DS [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-02 14:05]:
2007/7/2, Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
What about this one? It still is not even if the warning is
not that important it should be fixed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/fortunes-ru$ lintian -I *.changes
W: fortunes-ru source:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
How does it compare with auto-apt? This a shell-only implementation
whereas auto-apt will find things which are accessed otherwise
(perhaps not bad).
command-not-found is very similar to auto-apt check, but command-not-found
is easier and targeted at the end user. And
2007/7/2, Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mhm strange the versions are the same. But anyway it should
be standard to test packages on unstable or in unstable
chroot, pbuilder etc.
=== cut ===
denis:~$ apt-cache policy lintian
lintian:
Installed: 1.23.32
Candidate: 1.23.32
Version table:
***
On 01/07/07, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/28/07, Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using a datestamp because that seems to be the best way to handle
the 'version' of the icons pack.
To prevent the need for an epoch if upstream decides to use versions,
you might want to
Raphael [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just wondering, if I would like to have some more checks like:
* making sure a php extension depends on a php-api
* a php extension provides an .ini file
etc...
Yes, absolutely. Ideally if someone could prepare a patch, that would be
great, but I'm happy to
On 01/07/07, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Minor correction: Missing checks should be filed as wishlist bugs, but
false positives and wrong results, unless explicitly already noted in the
long tag description, should be filed at normal or minor severity. I try
to correct those as much
On 02/07/07, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raphael [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just wondering, if I would like to have some more checks like:
* making sure a php extension depends on a php-api
* a php extension provides an .ini file
etc...
Yes, absolutely. Ideally if someone could
On 02/07/07, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/3/07, Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, I'll use the latter (uploading to mentors right now).
By the way, are you interested in sponsoring the package? =)
I'm not a KDE user and I don't have time for sponsoring, sorry.
I just wondered if you replaced the Linspire animated logo from Konqueror?
This and some other licensing things are keeping me from doing this package
for Kubuntu at this time.
--
Richard A. Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG Key: 0x2E2C0124
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
Hello Richard,
On 02/07/07, Richard A. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wondered if you replaced the Linspire animated logo from Konqueror?
This and some other licensing things are keeping me from doing this package
for Kubuntu at this time.
No, I didn't remove/replace any single file.
On Monday 02 July 2007 18:41:01 you wrote:
[snip]
| No, I didn't remove/replace any single file. I would hope a
| DD/somebody to tell me I should remove/replace any file if required
| and why.
| All the icons were released under LGPL, so there's no licence problem
| I'm aware of.
The license
On 02/07/07, Richard A. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 02 July 2007 18:41:01 you wrote:
[snip]
| No, I didn't remove/replace any single file. I would hope a
| DD/somebody to tell me I should remove/replace any file if required
| and why.
| All the icons were released under LGPL, so
Hi there.
On Jun 30 2007, Hideki Yamane wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:19:23 -0400
Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if it's not DFSG free, it can still go into non-free, right?
I hope so.
Can anybody explain how packages go into non-free? I mean: how much free
the package has to be to
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:43:05PM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
Can anybody explain how packages go into non-free? I mean: how much free
the package has to be to be considered to non-free and which issues are
blocker that would forbid the package into entering non-free?
You/we have to be able to
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:43:05PM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
Can anybody explain how packages go into non-free? I mean: how much free
the package has to be to be considered to non-free and which issues are
blocker that would forbid the package into entering non-free?
A package can go into
Dear Neil,
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:03:54PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
version? Change to unstable?
Based on your advice, the destination is now unstable. It's not worth
tracking two separate streams when the real features are in this
one. Also, it doesn't _break_ anything (other than
26 matches
Mail list logo
