Re: DFSG package to remove images/documentation

Ask upstream to remove the non-source files from their source tarball and distribute binary packages for users who don't have the right build tools. If they don't want to do that the way I workaround this is: Delete the files in debian/rules clean (usually just add them to debian/clean). Delete

Bug#735125: marked as done (RFS: spatialindex/1.8.1-2)

Your message dated Mon, 13 Jan 2014 04:26:29 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: spatialindex/1.8.1-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #735125, regarding RFS: spatialindex/1.8.1-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not

Bug#735130: RFS: libapr-memcache/0.7.0-2

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libapr-memcache" * Package name: libapr-memcache Version : 0.7.0-2 Upstream Author : Paul Querna * URL : http://www.outoforder.cc/projects/libs/apr_mem

Bug#735125: RFS: spatialindex/1.8.1-2

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "spatialindex" Package name: spatialindex Version : 1.8.1-2 Upstream Author : Marios Hadjieleftheriou URL : http://libspatialindex.github.io/ License : MIT

Bug#735124: RFS: palo/1.92-1 [ITA] -- parisc bootloader

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages] Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "palo" * Package name: palo Version : 1.92 Upstream Author : [fill in name and email of upstream] * URL : [fil

Re: Add debug files to existing packages or add -dbg packages?

You should male a dedicated dbg package. http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-dbg Tony Houghton schrieb: >ROXTerm is going to need a new release soon and I'd like to include >debugging symbols. It currently has binary packages roxterm-common >(

Add debug files to existing packages or add -dbg packages?

ROXTerm is going to need a new release soon and I'd like to include debugging symbols. It currently has binary packages roxterm-common (data files), roxterm-gtk3 (executables linked with GTK3 etc) and roxterm-gtk2 (linked with GTK2 etc). Should debugging symbols always be put in separate -dbg packa

Re: DFSG package to remove images/documentation

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 05:27:45PM +0100, Pau Koning wrote: > I have here a tarball which includes a prebuild version of the manual and all > images are png files. But it also includes the source for the documentation > (the python files) and the source for the images (dia and svg files). Sweet!

Bug#734815: marked as done (RFS: peg/0.1.15-1 -- recursive-descent parser generators for C)

Your message dated Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:57:26 +0100 with message-id <20140112165726.ga8...@jwilk.net> and subject line Re: Bug#734815: RFS: peg/0.1.15-1 -- recursive-descent parser generators for C has caused the Debian Bug report #734815, regarding RFS: peg/0.1.15-1 -- recursive-descent parser gen

Bug#734947: marked as done (RFS: thuban/1.2.2-5)

Your message dated Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:29:32 + with message-id and subject line closing RFS: thuban/1.2.2-5 has caused the Debian Bug report #734947, regarding RFS: thuban/1.2.2-5 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it

DFSG package to remove images/documentation

Hi, I have here a tarball which includes a prebuild version of the manual and all images are png files. But it also includes the source for the documentation (the python files) and the source for the images (dia and svg files). Is my understanding correct that the autogenerated documentation and

Bug#712118: marked as done (RFS: splix/2.0.0+svn315-1)

Your message dated Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:52:15 +0100 with message-id <37559923.LDlFKUnJ26@gyllingar> and subject line Re: Bug#712118: marked as done (RFS: splix/2.0.0+svn308-1) has caused the Debian Bug report #712118, regarding RFS: splix/2.0.0+svn315-1 to be marked as done. This means that you cla

Re: Splitting a package

Arno Töll writes: > Hi Ole, > On 12.01.2014 13:30, Olе Streicher wrote: >> However, now I get a bug report that the >> new "-doc" package has files that would overwrite parts of the old base >> package. > Please use Replaces in conjunction with Breaks (not Conflict

Re: Splitting a package

Hi Ole, On 12.01.2014 13:30, Olе Streicher wrote: > However, now I get a bug report that the > new "-doc" package has files that would overwrite parts of the old base > package. > > How should I solve this problem? Should I set "Conflicts" and > "Replaces:" to "cpl

Bug#735058: RFS: pstar/1.1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pstar" * Package name: pstar Version : 1.1 Upstream Author : Atle Solbakken * URL : http://www.p-star.org * License : GPLv3+, Apache 2.0 Sect

Splitting a package

Hi, to solve the problem of , split my package into an arch-dependent part (containing the binaries) and an arch-independent part (containing the manual pages and HTML documentation): cpl-plugin-fors (4.11.12+dfsg-1) --> cpl-plugin-fors + cpl-plugin-fors-doc (4.11.