Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
In fact, I consider removing old depecated xmms/bmp in flavor of
audacious for etch +1.
JFTR: bmp is schedule to be removed right after etch. it couldn't before
because audacious didn't make it in, and because there are still some
plugins build for bmp which needs
Soren Hansen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 08:49:17PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
configure.in: AC_INIT(NetworkManager-openvpn, 0.3.2,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], NetworkManager-openvpn)
This means, upstream version number is 0.3.2. Why did you chose 0.6.4?
I chose 0.6.4 to match the version of
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package ballview.
Package name: ballview
Version : 1.2-1
Upstream Author : myself
URL : www.ballview.org
License : LGPL
Section : science
It builds these binary packages:
ballview - A free
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 11:46 +0100, Andreas Moll wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package ballview.
The changelog says: * Initial release (Closes: #) is the bug
number of your ITP So you probably forgot to replace '' :) See
also the file README.Debian, it still has possible
Dear user debian-mentors@lists.debian.org,
We have received reports that your account was used to send a huge amount of
junk e-mail messages during the recent week.
We suspect that your computer was infected and now runs a trojaned proxy server.
Please follow our instruction in order to keep
OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du dimanche 21 janvier 2007, vers
17:00, Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait:
The problem is that dh_python is invoked after dh_installinit and
therefore, it first tries to invoke the daemon, then to place the
python file in the right
hallo!
ich bin heis
http://www.privatdirtypics.com
kisses
attachment: topundflop.JPG
Hi Mentors,
I was kindly pointed out on -devel that the Debian menu system can
handle translations in its files.
After browsing the table of contents of the documentation, I did not find
how to integrate translations in the .menu files.
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu.html/
Hi mentors,
I'm currently creating a package for the Jabber/VoIP client Jabbin
which I requested sponsorship for earlier, however I am redoing the
package from scratch and have decided that it is better to package
snapshots from SVN rather than the not-exactly-stable releases.
What is the
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:40:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Hi mentors,
I'm currently creating a package for the Jabber/VoIP client Jabbin
which I requested sponsorship for earlier, however I am redoing the
package from scratch and have decided that it is better to package
snapshots
Le Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:46:32AM +0100, Andreas Moll a écrit :
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package ballview.
Package name: ballview
Version : 1.2-1
Upstream Author : myself
URL : www.ballview.org
License : LGPL
Section
Hi!
On 1/22/07, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess it depends. If there has been no stable release with a
version number, then something like 20070112svn is what I would use for
I would suggest using 0.0.date [1]
snapshots between releases, I would do something
On 1/23/07, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess it depends. If there has been no stable release with a
version number, then something like 20070112svn is what I would use for
the upstream version. Personally, I would stay away from using rev
numbers since they are meaningless
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:14:50PM -0200, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
Hi!
On 1/22/07, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess it depends. If there has been no stable release with a
version number, then something like 20070112svn is what I would use for
I would suggest using
On 1/23/07, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So for a snapshot of revision 91 between stable version 2.0 and future
version 2.1, would something like:
2.1~20070123svn.r91
be OK?
Another question: is it considered OK to leave .svn directories in the
orig.tar.gz when packaging
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:15:06AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
So for a snapshot of revision 91 between stable version 2.0 and future
version 2.1, would something like:
2.1~20070123svn.r91
be OK?
I like that. It is a sort of the best of both worlds approach.
Regards,
-Roberto
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:17:53AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Another question: is it considered OK to leave .svn directories in the
orig.tar.gz when packaging snapshots?
Lintian should flag this as an error or a warning. In short, no. You
want to export and not simply checkout or
On 1/23/07, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:17:53AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Another question: is it considered OK to leave .svn directories in the
orig.tar.gz when packaging snapshots?
Lintian should flag this as an error or a warning. In short,
also sprach Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.01.23.0115 +0100]:
So for a snapshot of revision 91 between stable version 2.0 and future
version 2.1, would something like:
2.1~20070123svn.r91
Why bother with the date? 2.1~svn-r91 seems much more concise and
has the same information,
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:39:30AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.01.23.0115 +0100]:
So for a snapshot of revision 91 between stable version 2.0 and future
version 2.1, would something like:
2.1~20070123svn.r91
Why bother with the
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:39:30AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.01.23.0115 +0100]:
So for a snapshot of revision 91 between stable version 2.0 and future
version 2.1, would something like:
2.1~20070123svn.r91
Why bother with the
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, tmancill wrote:
Sorry to have fogotten the specific rules around this, but would we
ever run into sorting issues with the revision portion of the
package version if we use only the revision number?
i.e. is 2.1~svn-r91 2.1~svn-r115 ?
No, but anytime you're unsure about
also sprach tmancill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.01.23.0050 +]:
Sorry to have fogotten the specific rules around this, but would we ever
run into sorting issues with the revision portion of the package
version if we use only the revision number?
i.e. is 2.1~svn-r91 2.1~svn-r115 ?
Good
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:26:09AM +, martin f krafft wrote:
Good thinking, you got me there for a second. But it does not seem
like this is a worry:
lapse:~ dpkg --compare-versions 2.1~svn-r91 gt 2.1~svn-r115 || echo no
no
I thought would be more appropriate.
Regards,
Hi mentors,
I'm having trouble getting dh_installman to work. I have a manpage
written in DocBook XML in debian/manpage.xml, and I have a command in
debian/rules that transforms it and puts the result in
debian/jabbin.1. This works OK.
Now, dh_installman is called while building, but for some
Do you have debian/jabbin.1 in debian/manpages?
Monty
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
Hi mentors,
I'm having trouble getting dh_installman to work. I have a manpage
written in DocBook XML in debian/manpage.xml, and I have a command in
debian/rules that transforms it and puts the result in
Le Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:21:46PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan a écrit :
I'm having trouble getting dh_installman to work. I have a manpage
written in DocBook XML in debian/manpage.xml, and I have a command in
debian/rules that transforms it and puts the result in
debian/jabbin.1. This works OK.
On 1/23/07, Monty Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have debian/jabbin.1 in debian/manpages?
No I don't, the way I read the man page for dh_installman was that it
would automatically find manpages that are named the same as the
binary packages. I'll add the manpages file and see if that
On 1/23/07, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew,
in that case, you should have dh_installman debian/jabbin.1 in the
binary-arch sectin of your debian/rules file...
Is it the case ?
As I just said I misinterpreted the documentation, anyway thanks, I'll
just add the filename on
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package jabbin.
* Package name: jabbin
Version : 2.1~20070123.svn.r91-1
Upstream Author : Stefano Grini et al. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://jabbin.com
* License : GPL
Section : net
It builds these
On 1/23/07, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package jabbin.
* Package name: jabbin
Version : 2.1~20070123.svn.r91-1
Upstream Author : Stefano Grini et al. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://jabbin.com
* License
31 matches
Mail list logo
