Hi,
to solve the problem of http://bugs.debian.org/733340, 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
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 a...@goliathdns.no
* URL : http://www.p-star.org
* License : GPLv3+,
Hi Ole,
On 12.01.2014 13:30, Olе Streicher wrote:
However, now I get a bug report http://bugs.debian.org/734917 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-plugin-fors
Arno Töll a...@debian.org writes:
Hi Ole,
On 12.01.2014 13:30, Olе Streicher wrote:
However, now I get a bug report http://bugs.debian.org/734917 that the
new -doc package has files that would overwrite parts of the old base
package.
Please use Replaces in conjunction with Breaks (not
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
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
Your message dated Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:29:32 +
with message-id e1w2num-0005qf...@quantz.debian.org
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
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
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!
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
You should male a dedicated dbg package.
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-dbg
Tony Houghton h...@realh.co.uk schrieb:
ROXTerm is going to need a new release soon and I'd like to include
debugging symbols. It currently has binary packages
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 : [fill
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 mha...@gmail.com
URL : http://libspatialindex.github.io/
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 c...@force-elite.com
* URL :
Your message dated Mon, 13 Jan 2014 04:26:29 +
with message-id e1w2z6b-0002as...@quantz.debian.org
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
