Re: VMware Player packages
Hi! No, it can build vmware-player .debs as well. I'll fix the wrong Ah, I see. I will take a look at vmware-package. Do you plan on supporting VMware Server as well? -- Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VMware Player packages
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:14:45AM +0100, Hans Kratz wrote: No, it can build vmware-player .debs as well. I'll fix the wrong Ah, I see. I will take a look at vmware-package. Do you plan on supporting VMware Server as well? As it is documented in the package docs, and a bug in the BTS, to support VMware Server, we'll need to build a second vmware-any-any-foo-source package from the same sources, which needs somebody with really serious make knowledge. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages for netcdf 3.6.2 (released today)
Warren Turkal wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 17:47, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
* possibility to build an arch:all documentation package
The maintainer is encouraging the use of the pre-built docs instead of
building them from the texinfo sources. Would there be an issue with doing
that?
It looks like there was a general consensus in a thread from 2005 [0]
that as long as the source code for the docs is shipped in the source
package, it is OK to ship the pre-built docs in the binary package(s).
Someone in that thread suggested [1] adding a target in debian/rules
that could build the docs even if that target was never called (except
by hand from time to time, to make sure that the docs are still
autobuildable).
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/02/msg00131.html
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/02/msg00134.html
If you want to do this, most of the clean target I suggested earlier
should be removed, since sbuild and dpkg-buildpackage always run
debian/rules clean first.
* whether or not this is the same as the netcdf-doc referenced by #321337
It seems to be. However, netcdf-doc hasn't been updated in ages.
Hmm. Do you think that the FTP masters should be asked to remove the
netcdf-doc source package from unstable once the new netcdf is there? If
so, I guess there is no problem with including a netcdf-doc binary
package built from the netcdf source package. The existing netcdf-doc
source package is most unlikely to end up on the autobuilders
(especially now that I realize it is of course arch:all) before netcdf
3.6.2 is in unstable :-)
From your other email:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 17:47, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
1) I have to tell you that I made an error in the clean target I
suggested for debian/rules:
[snip]
... specifically, all of the $ signs above should be changed to $$ in
order to escape them from Make. My apologies for that!
Fixed in pre4 @ [1].
[1]http://www.penguintechs.org/~wt/debian/netcdf/
Assuming you'd like me to look at the newer -1~pre5 version there instead?
Looks fine, except there are still a lot of HTML files in the diff.gz.
This rule in the debian/rules clean target:
rm -f man/*.html
doesn't get them all since most are in subdirectories of man. Try this
instead for instance:
find . -name '*.html' -exec rm -f {} \;
# remove now-empty directories
find . -depth -type d -empty -exec rmdir {} \;
It would make sense to delete these in a clean target even if you decide
to use the docs prebuilt by upstream, since these HTML files are *not*
present in the orig.tar.gz and you don't install them to the .debs in
any case.
best regards,
--
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: fusecompress
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package fusecompress. * Package name: fusecompress Version : 1.99.10-1 Upstream Author : Milan Svoboda * URL : http://www.miio.net/fusecompress/ * License : GPL Section : utils It builds these binary packages: fusecompress - transparent filesystem compression using FUSE The package is lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 407569 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fusecompress - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fusecompress/fusecompress_1.99.10-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Ritesh Raj Sarraf -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com Necessity is the mother of invention. Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is research. The great are those who achieve the impossible, the petty are those who cannot - rrs pgpnLXp9KDzhA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: zeroinstall-injector
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:26:57 +, Thomas Leonard wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package zeroinstall-injector. [...] For some recent articles about Zero Install, see: Zero Install: An executable critique of native package systems http://specialreports.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/02/15/0724206tid=138 Decentralised Installation Systems http://www.osnews.com/story.php/16956/Decentralised-Installation-Systems Note: Zero Install is now in Ubuntu/feisty: http://packages.ubuntu.com/feisty/admin/zeroinstall-injector Should I continue posting new Debian packages here, or would it be better to tell Debian users to use the Ubuntu package? -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages for netcdf 3.6.2 (released today)
Kevin B McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm. Do you think that the FTP masters should be asked to remove the netcdf-doc source package from unstable once the new netcdf is there? If so, I guess there is no problem with including a netcdf-doc binary package built from the netcdf source package. The existing netcdf-doc source package is most unlikely to end up on the autobuilders (especially now that I realize it is of course arch:all) before netcdf 3.6.2 is in unstable :-) If a new netcdf source package starts producing the netcdf-doc binary package and that's the only binary package produced by the netcdf-doc source package, netcdf-doc will be removed from the archive semi-automatically without any further action by the maintainer required. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: trac-bzr
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package trac-bzr. * Package name: trac-bzr Version : 0.2+bzr31-1 Upstream Author : Aaron Bentley [EMAIL PROTECTED], Yann Hodique [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jelmer Vernooij jelmer.at.samba.org, Marien Zwart [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : https://launchpad.net/trac-bzr * License : GPL Section : python It builds these binary packages: trac-bzr - provides Bzr version control backend for Trac The package is lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/trac-bzr - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/trac-bzr/trac-bzr_0.2+bzr31-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards, -- Chris Lamb, Leamington Spa, UKGPG: 0x634F9A20 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
