Hi,
I've just uploaded dist-3.60-3 to ftp.debian.org. From the
changes file:
Date: 05 Jan 96 06:55 UT
Source: dist
Binary: dist
Version: 3.60-3
Description:
dist: Tools for developing, maintaining and distributing software.
Priority: Low
Changes:
* Use
Hi,
I just uploaded mailagent-3.44-2 to ftp.debian.org. From the
changes file:
Date: 05 Jan 96 08:02 UT
Source: mailagent
Binary: mailagent
Version: 3.44-2
Description:
mailagent: An automatic mail-processing tool
Priority: Low
Changes:
* Use /etc/news/organization
Robert Leslie writes (Re: New ftp method for dselect):
Exceptions: (the ones I saw, anyway)
stable/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA24-1.deb
debian-1.0/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA26-2.deb
If there are no objections I think I will rename the next version of the bind
package to something
Sven Rudolph writes (Re: Buglist):
Some suggestions for the bug reporting system:
- It is possible to mark a message quiet in order to get it not echoed
at debian-devel. Is there a way to make answers to it be not echoed
too ? (e.g. by introducing a debian-bugs-quiet alias)
That
Miquel van Smoorenburg writes (apache):
Well, my views on this are:
o a /var/httpd/htdocs for the documents
Remember apache can be a server for multiple domains. That's why
we need a 2-level directory structure; you might get
/var/httpd/htdocs-customer2
/var/httpd/htdocs-customer3
(Crosspost to -alpha and -sparc removed.)
Bill Mitchell writes (Re: binary-alpha and binary-sparc directories):
It seems that the Guidelines document needs updating to address
issues falling out of this.
One issue is whether binary packages are to be distinguished by
distribution-specific
Erick Branderhorst writes (Bug#2060: dpkg and depends on version again):
[...] The character is misleading and in practice it is
interpretated by dpkg as =. I would suggest to change the syntax
used in Depends/Conflict/Provides/Recommends/Suggest fields into a
more intuitive way (Table 2).
Erick Branderhorst writes (Bug#2059: dpkg and depend on versions):
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.0.8
I installed the man package (2.3.10-6) succesfully. After that I tried
to upgrade the libgdbm1 package (1.7.3-8). During installation of
libgdbm1 dpkg reports about libgdbm1 conflicting with man
Michael K. Johnson writes (Re: binary-alpha and binary-sparc directories ):
Ian Murdock writes:
[...] ther have to have separate Incoming directories for all
supported architectures, or we'll have to have a naming scheme for all
Incoming binary packages (prepending a dash and the architecture
Michael Alan Dorman writes (Bug#2081: named does not start):
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jean-Marc Bourguet w
rites:
PS=`ps -p $PID 2/dev/null| tail -1 | grep named`
You might want to make this
PS=`ps -p $PID 2/dev/null| tail -1 | grep named | grep -v grep`
so that it doesn't pick up
Ian Murdock writes (Too much information! (And what to do about it.)):
With all of the new developers that are joining the Project and the
number of new packages that are resulting from their involvement, it's
becoming increasingly difficult, especially for newer users who aren't
exactly sure
Marek Michalkiewicz writes (Bug#2091: creating packages requires root
privileges):
To create a binary *.deb package, root privileges are required. This
is because you must create a complete directory structure with proper
ownerships and permissions first, and then use dpkg-deb to create
a
Matthew Bailey writes (Re: FTP site performance low):
[...]
Well netscape corp screwed me with politics and listed me in their mirror
listings. Well there used to be more mirrors but it seems that we are one
of three listed now. And until beta 5 or release version are out I can
not get out
Ian Jackson wrote:
Note that means less-than-or-equal-to in this context.
Could dpkg also support using = for this meaning please? (Or does it
already?) Having to write to mean = is far from optimal; I think
it's something we should aim to get away from at some point.
--
Richard Kettlewell
Package: dvipsk
Version: 5.58f
I obtained the sources from ftp.debian.org within the 0.93R6 directory tree,
and tried to recompile simply using the command:
debian.rules build
The first thing that had to be fixed was to go and fetch the kpathsea
sources, since one can't compile dvipsk unless one
(Gigantic crosspost trimmed.)
Raul Miller writes (Re: binary-alpha and binary-sparc directories):
It does look like dvips was superceeded by some other package, and
that it did originally have some executables in it. [All I have on my
system from dvips is a copyright statement and some .tex
David H. Silber writes (Bug#2080: cern-httpd or dpkg leaves log files after
purge.):
Package: cern-httpd -or- dpkg
Version: ??? 1.0.7
After purging cern-httpd from my system, the log files remained.
The logfiles will be created by the package, so dpkg doesn't know
anything about
Raul Miller writes (Re: Bug#1995: run-parts on laptops):
Ian Jackson:
Perhaps savelog should be moved into another package, then ?
This seems like a very good idea.
miscutils is probably the right one.
Ian.
While thinking about this problem over the Christmas break I have come
to the conclusion that we do not have to change the filenames so that
we can recover the package name and version information from them.
Programs can use the Packages file to avoid downloading files that
they know they don't
Manoj Srivastava writes (dist-3.60-3 uploaded to ftp.debian.org):
* Use /etc/news/organization instead of /etc/organization
Please note that people who installed mailagent-3.44-1
and/or dist-3.60-2 shall have to remove /etc/organization
manually after
How about
= = for less/greater than or equal to
Ok
for strictly less/greater thani
Ok
for less/greater than or equal to (backwards compatibility,
generates warning from dpkg-deb)
Ok but an fatal error from dpkg-deb would be better than just a warning.
= for equal to
Erick Branderhorst writes (Bug#2059: dpkg and depend on versions):
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.0.8
I installed the man package (2.3.10-6) succesfully. After that I tried
to upgrade the libgdbm1 package (1.7.3-8). During installation of
libgdbm1 dpkg reports about libgdbm1 conflicting
The following problem reports have not yet been marked as `taken up' by a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or or `forwarded' by a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OVER 10 MONTHS OLD - ATTENTION IS REQUIRED:
Ref PackageKeywords/Subject Package maintainer
416 wenglish perl doesn't
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There are a couple of things I want to set people straight on, in this
area:
* dpkg and other packages written especially for Debian don't have a
revision number because a revision number would be meaningless and
confusing. The most recent guidelines
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED], in a magnificent manifestation of deity, wrote:
In principle this sounds like a good idea. I don't have a strong
opinion on whether Optional should be included in the `distribution'.
I think that it should be a part of the distribution (on the cd), it
just gives
Bill Mitchell writes:
Bill Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ian * dpkg and other packages written especially for Debian don't have a
Ian revision number because a revision number would be meaningless and
Ian confusing.
[...]
Bill I'm not religious on this issue, but I'd prefer it
We should require a revision number for Debian packages. Imagine someone
forgets to remove -g in the Makefile and doesn't strip the executable, or
some other oversight happens. You need a revision number to distinguish
an oversight-fix release.
If that were to happen to the upstream package for
Package: mbr
priority: required
section: base
maintainer: Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
version: 1.0.0 1.0.0
Bad version: string.
Brian
( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
I've updated mkpackages so that it puts the size in bytes and MD5
checksum of the files in the Packages files.
I didn't put them in the same field because it seemed silly for
programs and humans to have to parse the contents of a field into two
essentially unrelated pieces of information, and
* Someone said that we don't need to parse the version number out of
the filenames. They were wrong. dftp and the dselect FTP method need
to know the version numbers of packages they're thinking about
downloading, so that incremental upgrades don't have to fetch all the
selected packages but
How about
= = for less/greater than or equal to
Ok
for strictly less/greater thani
Ok
for less/greater than or equal to (backwards compatibility,
generates warning from dpkg-deb)
Ok but an fatal error from dpkg-deb would be better than just a warning.
How about no
Hi,
Ian Jackson wrote:
As Matt Bailey suggests, I think separate Incoming directories is a
better solution.
I'm from the m68k section, and although it's kind of you to set up the
directories for our uploads, I believe the main development of Debian/m68k
is going to be done with the german ftp
Package: ax25-util
Version: 0.28.0-2.deb
I tried numerous ways (including recompiling) to get axattach to load
but each time it returned with the error message
SIOCSIFHWADDR: Invalid argument
When I removed the slip module from /etc/modules, I was then able to
load axattach without errors.
33 matches
Mail list logo
