Hi,
I'm taking a look at it, and see that Sam is in the Uploaders. Should I
upload the package (if it's good), or does he normally do that?
Thanks,
Bas
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 01:15:04AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.0.20070315-5
2007/9/10, Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I'm taking a look at it, and see that Sam is in the Uploaders. Should I
upload the package (if it's good), or does he normally do that?
Thanks,
Bas
Please upload it, Bas :)
PS: BTW, It's better to use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
instead of [EMAIL
Hello again,
I have some questions before uploading the package:
- You have specified Priority: extra. According to policy, This
contains all packages that conflict with others with required,
important, standard or optional priorities, or are only likely to be
useful if you already know
Hi Bas,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:55:31AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
I have some questions before uploading the package:
first of all thanks for your review.
- You have specified Priority: extra. According to policy, This
contains all packages that conflict with others with required,
2007/9/10, Jens Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Bas,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:55:31AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
I have some questions before uploading the package:
first of all thanks for your review.
- You have specified Priority: extra. According to policy, This
contains all
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package xulrunner-l10n.
* Package name: xulrunner-l10n
Version : 1.8.1-1
Upstream Author : Mozilla Project and Mozilla Localization Projects.
* URL : http://www.mozilla.org/projects/l10n/
* License : GPL LGPL MPL
Might seem like a silly question to most people. But is it required to
bump the soname of a library when it breaks ABI compatability with an
older version? I always thought that is was, but I can't find anything
in debian-policy that says that it is required. In fact, it isn't even
suggested.
Brandon [EMAIL PROTECTED] (10/09/2007):
Might seem like a silly question to most people. But is it required to
bump the soname of a library when it breaks ABI compatability with an
older version? I always thought that is was, but I can't find anything
in debian-policy that says that it is
Brandon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Might seem like a silly question to most people. But is it required to
bump the soname of a library when it breaks ABI compatability with an
older version? I always thought that is was, but I can't find anything
in debian-policy that says that it is required.
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 08:24:19PM +0200, Jan Beyer wrote:
Justin Pryzby schrieb am 07.09.2007 17:46 Uhr:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 05:20:56PM +0200, Jan Beyer wrote:
On 09/07/2007 01:55 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote :
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 11:54:18AM +0200, Jan Beyer wrote:
And finally there
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:50:53AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
(Colin, CC-ing you as I'm not sure if you're of aware of this long thread,
and both man-db and groff are your territory...)
I wasn't aware of it, thanks. Sorry for my delay in responding.
I read through the thread and there are a
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:59:50 -0700
Brandon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Might seem like a silly question to most people. But is it required to
bump the soname of a library when it breaks ABI compatability with an
older version?
Yes.
You (in association with upstream) also need to decide whether
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 07:03:57PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:50:53AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
(Colin, CC-ing you as I'm not sure if you're of aware of this long thread,
and both man-db and groff are your territory...)
I wasn't aware of it, thanks. Sorry for
Hi,
There is a list of softwares already debian packaged.
The packager has applied a patch on them.
I need to modify again the patched part.
So, I need to patch the patch.
I guess in real world I wont patch the patch, but what is the easy way
to do so?
I know a bit using dpatch (or is there a
Hi Bas,
I fixed (nearly) all problems and uploaded a new package.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:55:31AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
I have some questions before uploading the package:
- You have specified Priority: extra. According to policy, This
contains all packages that conflict with others
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:25:52AM +0200, Mihamina (R12y) Rakotomandimby wrote:
There is a list of softwares already debian packaged.
The packager has applied a patch on them.
I need to modify again the patched part.
So, I need to patch the patch.
I guess in real world I wont patch the patch,
x-post to debian-java, debian-mentors and pkg-java-maintainers
Hi,
I'm building docbook-xsl-saxon, a Java package, that provides
docbook-xsl related extensions. For those interested in the packaging
files, see
Dear DD,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package kopete-otr.
* Package name : kopete-otr
Version : 0.6-1
* URL : http://kopete-otr.follefuder.org/
* License : GPL
Section : net
It builds these binary packages:
Hi,
* Mihamina (R12y) Rakotomandimby [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-11 02:28]:
There is a list of softwares already debian packaged.
The packager has applied a patch on them.
I need to modify again the patched part.
So, I need to patch the patch.
I guess in real world I wont patch the patch, but
Soname bumps are upstream business...
Yeah. That makes sense. But sometimes upstream doesn't do it.
I'm asking mostly for bug reporting. I don't maintain any libraries.
When I file a bug report against a library for breaking ABI
compatability without bumping the soname, do I report it as
Brandon [EMAIL PROTECTED] (10/09/2007):
I'm asking mostly for bug reporting. I don't maintain any libraries.
When I file a bug report against a library for breaking ABI
compatability without bumping the soname, do I report it as serious?
Or just important? What would the justification be for
On 10/09/2007, Francesco Cecconi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear DD,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package kopete-otr.
Maybe you should send an ITP first and add a (Closes: #nn) to the
debian/changelog
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
Kind regards
Neil Williams wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 23:23:13 +0100
David Claughton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've created the beginnings of a package for sqliteman (upstream site is
http://sqliteman.com).
It's a GUI frontend for a well established and generally not that buggy
backend - it doesn't
Mihamina (R12y) Rakotomandimby wrote:
Hi,
There is a list of softwares already debian packaged.
The packager has applied a patch on them.
I need to modify again the patched part.
So, I need to patch the patch.
I guess in real world I wont patch the patch, but what is the easy way
to do so?
Justin Pryzby wrote:
Hi,
The debhelper tools (dh_install) used to use debian/tmp but now
(depending on DH_COMPAT) use debian/$package. So this is a small-ish
lintian bug.
But debian/tmp also happens to be where dh_make defaults to install (make
DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp), and then
Mihamina (R12y) Rakotomandimby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I need to modify again the patched part.
So, I need to patch the patch.
I guess in real world I wont patch the patch, but what is the easy way
to do so?
Allow the patch to proceed, and then simply apply another subsequent
patch that
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Given is pretty much spot-on in:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2007/08/msg00308.html
Ironically, that message (at least, the one presented at that archive
page) doesn't display its non-ASCII characters properly in a UTF-8
locale.
--
27 matches
Mail list logo
