Il 26/10/2010 0.52, Gabriele Giacone ha scritto:
* Package name: ubiquity
Just for the records, Ubuntu has a ubiquity source package already (it's
the d-i frontend), so if you're interested in having such package in
Ubuntu too, you should consider using a different source name.
--
.''`.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 23:40, Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote:
Nevertheless I have a few comments about it.
Thank you very much for your time! (:
debian/control: A dependency on ${shlibs:Depends} does not make sense
for Architecture: all packages. This is for architecture dependent
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 14:33, Jan Hauke Rahm j...@debian.org wrote:
FWIW, I'm interested in these packages as I'm using self-made packages
on my systems already. I must admit, though, that packaging them isn't
what I had in mind. Did you ever contact the GNOME guys on how you could
proceed
Can anybody point me to the part of the policy where Build-Depends and
Build-Depends-Indep differences are explained?
Please, CC.
Thanks.
--
anatoly t.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org
Date: Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:40 AM
Subject: Re:
Le Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:12:06AM +0300, anatoly techtonik a écrit :
Can anybody point me to the part of the policy where Build-Depends and
Build-Depends-Indep differences are explained?
Dear Anatoly,
the rationale is explained in the footnote:
anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com writes:
Can anybody point me to the part of the policy where Build-Depends and
Build-Depends-Indep differences are explained?
They differ in when they must be satisfied (that is for running which
target in debian/rules). See Section 7.7 [1].
Regards,
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.21+ds1-7
of my package webfs.
It builds these binary packages:
webfs - lightweight http server for static content
The package appears to be pedantically lintian clean.
The upload would fix a single bug: 601044,
and thus make
2010/10/24 Enrique Hernández Bello ehbe...@gmail.com:
What is the next step? :)
--
Enrique Hernández Bello
Hi Enrique,
I'm not a DD yet, but I learned a lot from sponsors being extremely
picky about my packages. Here are some comments for you to consider:
1) instead of CDBS and explicitly
On 10/26/2010 08:52 AM, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Just for the records, Ubuntu has a ubiquity source package already (it's
the d-i frontend), so if you're interested in having such package in
Ubuntu too, you should consider using a different source name.
I'm not interested in ubuntu.
Rename could
On 10/26/2010 09:22 AM, Michael Shuler wrote:
On 10/26/2010 08:48 AM, Gabriele Giacone wrote:
On 10/26/2010 08:52 AM, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Just for the records, Ubuntu has a ubiquity source package already (it's
the d-i frontend), so if you're interested in having such package in
Ubuntu too,
On 10/26/2010 08:48 AM, Gabriele Giacone wrote:
On 10/26/2010 08:52 AM, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Just for the records, Ubuntu has a ubiquity source package already (it's
the d-i frontend), so if you're interested in having such package in
Ubuntu too, you should consider using a different source
On 10/26/2010 09:28 AM, Michael Shuler wrote:
On 10/26/2010 09:22 AM, Michael Shuler wrote:
On 10/26/2010 08:48 AM, Gabriele Giacone wrote:
On 10/26/2010 08:52 AM, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Just for the records, Ubuntu has a ubiquity source package already
(it's
the d-i frontend), so if you're
On 10/26/2010 04:53 PM, Michael Shuler wrote:
An existing source name conflict example I found:
libsage2 - Source: sage
xul-ext-sage - Source: sage-extension
-extension sounds a little cleaner to me. ;)
I'd like to keep ubiquity, name chosen by upstream.
And it's good because there are
Il 26/10/2010 17.49, Gabriele Giacone ha scritto:
I'd like to keep ubiquity, name chosen by upstream.
And it's good because there are no packages named ubiquity in Debian.
Derivatives can choose their own package names.
Just to avoid some people complaining, I asked Ubuntu Archive
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Luca Falavigna dktrkr...@debian.org wrote:
Il 26/10/2010 17.49, Gabriele Giacone ha scritto:
I'd like to keep ubiquity, name chosen by upstream.
And it's good because there are no packages named ubiquity in Debian.
Derivatives can choose their own package
On 10/26/2010 06:17 PM, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Just to avoid some people complaining, I asked Ubuntu Archive
Administrators to include ubiquity into their sync-blacklist list, so
Ubuntu package won't be overwritten by accident. This has been just
accomplished, so it's much safer using ubiquity
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Gabriele Giacone 1o5g4...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/26/2010 08:52 AM, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Just for the records, Ubuntu has a ubiquity source package already (it's
the d-i frontend), so if you're interested in having such package in
Ubuntu too, you should
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.8.6-1
of my package abiword. This is an update to the newest upstream version,
targetting experimental due to the squeeze freeze.
It builds these binary packages:
abiword- efficient, featureful word processor with collaboration
With some window managers and/or when closing many roxterm tabs rapidly
with keyboard auto-repeat, closing tabs may cause the window to shrink,
reducing the number of columns and/or rows in the remaining tabs'
terminals (see
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 01:41:00PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Gabriele Giacone 1o5g4...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/26/2010 08:52 AM, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Just for the records, Ubuntu has a ubiquity source package already (it's
the d-i frontend), so if
On 2010-10-26, Gabriele Giacone 1o5g4...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/26/2010 04:53 PM, Michael Shuler wrote:
An existing source name conflict example I found:
libsage2 - Source: sage
xul-ext-sage - Source: sage-extension
-extension sounds a little cleaner to me. ;)
I'd like to keep
21 matches
Mail list logo
