Hi Jeffrey,
On 2015-09-30 14:17, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Crypto++ has test files. When they are run from $PWD, them they work
> fine. After installation into, say, /usr/share/, they break because
> the location is an implicit dependency. So the two requirements are
> self test must always run from
* Jens Reyer , 2015-09-30, 16:23:
version+nmu (obsolete nmu variant, shouldn't be used today)
I wouldn't call it obsolete. It is the recommended scheme for native
packages.
(For a few months in 2009, DevRef said that you should use +nmuN for all
packages, but the idea didn't catch on.)
-
Hi,
>done. thanks for the hint.
>Those lines are probably the result of some trials
>that I forgot to cleanup :)
>
>I tidied up a bit the configuration.ac and Makefile.am files
wonderful
>The point of that commit was to add the debugging flags to the
>compiler command line.
>
> if ! "$debu
Hi Grigori,
>By the way, I also uploaded python3-ck:
>https://mentors.debian.net/package/python3-ck
this is a nack for me.
You can build two binaries with the same source package, look e.g. to
https://sources.debian.net/src/python-esmre/0.3.1-3/
this includes:
compat level --> 9
debhelper >=
Hi Azat,
>No problem, replaced version in d/changelog and d/NEWS to
>"2.1-3+dfsg-1".
wonderful
>Done using d/copyright, thanks.
this is not really correct.
I see you remove Makefiles in copyright, but why?
that files-excluded needs to be used for non dfsg files, not for autogenerated
stuf
Your message dated Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:28:49 + (UTC)
with message-id <1543860889.5505041.1443709729185.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#788653: RFS: ktap/0.4-1 [ITP] -- lightweight
script-based dynamic tracing tool for Linux
has caused the Debian Bug report #788653,
regar
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "arrayfire"
* Package name: arrayfire
Version : 3.1.2+dfsg1-2
Upstream Author : ArrayFire Development Group
* URL : http://arrayfire.com/
* License : BSD
control: owner -1 !
Hi,
the packaging looks good, however I'm not sure about this [1]
apt-get install libblas.so
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Package libblas.so is a virtual package provided by:
libopenblas-dev 0.2.14-1
libblas-dev 1.2
Hi, I could own the bug no problem, just I would like to avoid stealing the
package to Helmut!
I did some new testing, and I'm really unsure about the upgrade procedure.
I tried to install dropbear from jessie and then install the deb files.
some issues:
- dpkg shows that a default configur
On 01/10/15 16:20, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
control: owner -1 !
Hi,
the packaging looks good, however I'm not sure about this [1]
apt-get install libblas.so
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Package libblas.so is a virtual package prov
Hi,
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 at 17:53:21 +0100, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi, I could own the bug no problem, just I would like to avoid
> stealing the package to Helmut!
Fair enough :-)
> - dpkg shows that a default configuration file has changed, asking me how to
> proceed
This is because /
Hi, I'm really interested in examples from c.d.o :)
not about this bug, but about some packages I comaintain that might have
benefits from this!
(sorry but I cant search from my phone...)
cheers,
G
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:"Ghislain Vaillant"
Date:Thu, 1 Oct, 2015 at 19:09
Su
Quite a few examples here:
https://codesearch.debian.net/perpackage-results/libblas-dev%20|%20libblas.so/2/page_0
Cheers,
Ghis
On 01/10/15 20:28, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
Hi, I'm really interested in examples from c.d.o :)
not about this bug, but about some packages I comaintain that migh
13 matches
Mail list logo