Re: apt-get install wordperfect?
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 08:01:27PM -0500, Mark Mealman wrote: > Is it possible for commercial software to make it into the Debian > archives(presumably in non-free)? [...] I'd tend to agree with the feeling in the above (apt-able archives of non-(DFSG)-free but (beer)-free are a Good Thing), but don't like the idea of Debian doing it -- it just dosn't seem like your (Caveat empator: I am not a debian-developer (yet)) place, and it almost certianly wasn't the idea of the people donating server space/bandwidth to be hosting commercial software. Perhaps all we need to do is write a nice easy commercial-software-packaging HOWTO, complete from writing a workable package (which dosn't have to comply with debain policy, making it /really/ easy) to creating a nice place to put them with a Packages.gz. Make it trivial for the commercial people to let their customers use apt's slickness, and perhaps they will... and we certianly wouldn't mind. -=- James Mastros -- First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment, and by then it was too late to say anything at all." -=- Nancy Lebowitz cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/ ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Re: Source-depends?
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 04:38:21AM +0930, Ron wrote: > > Well, it sounds like you repeated what about a dozen people have already > > said. The concern is an automated way to generate the depends. Umm, any purticular reason to that compile-depends must be autogenerated -- why can't they be done manualy by the packager? (I realize that this is less then ideal -- but having this in optionaly, manualy seems better then not having it at all.) > > The > > autobuilders already use a semi-working type of this, but it isn't perfect > > and makes assumptions that can't always be assumed. Mind describing the method the autobuilders use (and where I can find approprate source)? > > I have already made a patch for dpkg-* programs to use source deps in a > > control field, that's not the problem though. Any reason not to put it in your next upload? > As this has probably been thrashed about innumerable times before, yet we > all agree that having source dependancies would be valuable, could someone > summarise (or provide a pointer to) the problems that have been identified. > > I see two situations up front: > - a need to describe the tools needed to build a package > (eg. gcc, bison, flex, etc..) > - and a need to describe the other source packages or librarys required > to build a working binary. Why do these need to be treated differently? > as well as a way to auto-detect these dependancies, what else is required? I've read through all of the archives that seemed appropriate, and found the following problems that had been brought up: 1. Automatic generation of the field(s) 2. Required/Recomened/Sugueted defs (for ex, what to do with tex tools and such that are required for only minor peices of the packages.) 3. Requiring bin-packages vs. requiring build trees from other package's source In general, on prior discussions, there was no conclusion on 1 and 2, but on 3 it was suguested that requiring build trees from another package was considered buggy. A soultion to number 1 that was tossed around included using libtricks to get a list of files accessed, and is therefor (IIRC) obselete. (And in any case is prohibitively slow.) -=- James Mastros -- First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment, and by then it was too late to say anything at all." -=- Nancy Lebowitz cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/ ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Source-depends?
I've noticed that many people on this list are, of late, talking about
source-depends, but not doing anything about standardizing it... thus, a
psudo-proposal for you guys (psudo because I can't formaly propose anything;
I'm not yet a developer):
A new control-file field be added, Compilation-Depends, which lists all
packages required to successfully compile a working version of the package
without major changes to the source (IE editing a Makefile to change a
clearly documented option or change a ./configure option is OK, but having to
rip things out of the source
is not). Another be added, Compilation-Suguests, that lists all packages
needed to compile the package to get functionality equivlent to the
cannonical binary-package. (For example, libgnomeui-dev would be a
Compilation-Suguests, but not a Compilation-Depends, for packages that are
optionaly gnomeified.) In the case of multi-binary packages, the "major"
binary should be compilable with only the Compilation-Depends. (For
example, in the case of the source-package enlightenment, the binary-package
enlightenment would be the primary). (I would simply make the least
required for any binary-package be Depends, but that would be obviously
wrong for -dev and -doc packages.) The Compilation-{Depends, Suguests}
should be propagated to the .dsc files, but not the .deb files; they aren't
useful in binary-packages.
Once the fields are standardized, the auto-builders should be able to use
them fairly easily, and lintian could allow them trivialy. (I would tend to
say that apt-get source shouldn't use them, as getting the source as a
reference, without wanting to compile it, is probably fairly common.
Anyway, that's a call for apt's maintaner.)
So how does this all sound to you guys?
-=- James Mastros
--
First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I
wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept
quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment,
and by then it was too late to say anything at all."
-=- Nancy Lebowitz
cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/
ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Bug#38057: general: libgtop0: Depends: libglib1.1.13 (>= 1.1.13-1) but it is not installable
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 04:47:13PM -0400, Sean Chuplis wrote:
> Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> libgtop0: Depends: libglib1.1.13 (>= 1.1.13-1) but it is not
> installable
libgtop0 should be removed from the archive; it is obselete and replaced by
libgtop1. gnome-utils 0.99.3-1 depends on it -- but gnome-utils 0.99.3-1 is
also obselete, but I cannot find a replacement, even though I have the
replacement installed! Is it still stuck in Incoming?
-=- James Mastros
--
First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I
wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept
quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment,
and by then it was too late to say anything at all."
-=- Nancy Lebowitz
cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/
ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Re: Two sets of packages for slink and potato. How to version?
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > The problem is the versioning. How to choose the version numbers in the two > sets so that users will automatically get the potato package when they will > choose to replace 'stable' by 'unstable' (or when potato will become stable). > > I've read > <http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/packaging.html/ch-versio > ns.html>. Should I choose an epoch of 1 for all the potato packages? In general, epochs are Considered Dangerous (for reasons I don't really understand -- but I assume that they are good). I'd suguest subtracting .01 from the debian-version and concatinating '.slink' to the end (somthing like 1.0-0.99.slink); that seems to be standard pratice. -=- James Mastros -- First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment, and by then it was too late to say anything at all." -=- Nancy Lebowitz cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/ ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Re: Hints about future improvements
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 02:51:20AM +0200, Gabor Fleischer wrote: > I was thinking about this, and there's one thing which is not the > best it could be, I think: Let's see libc, and the packages that > are compiled from the same source, for example locales. [...] > > There could be a value in the control file like: Last-changed-version or > something similar. apt/dselect could decide from this wether it > needs to download this package or not. [...] Or, we could try to depricate giving the source-package and all of it's associated binary-packages the same version number, even when there are no changes -- more work for the maintainer, without a dought (more places to change the version-number, needing to check in which bin-package the version number should increase, and what _versioned_ interdependincies the packages should have... but it would significantly decrease the bulk of packages that need to be upgraed (glibc-doc and libc6-dev especially). -=- James Mastros -- First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment, and by then it was too late to say anything at all." -=- Nancy Lebowitz cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/ ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Re: Compiling wordinspect for potato
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 05:02:30PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: > I installed libglib1.2_1.2.3-1.deb, libglib1.2-dev_1.2.3-1.deb, > libgtk1.2_1.2.3-1.deb, and libgtk1.2-dev_1.2.3-1.deb, and built the > package. It compiled cleanly, and runs as it did in slink, except > that every time it pops up a window it displays the following message: > > > Gtk-WARNING **: gtk_scrolled_window_add(): cannot add non scrollable widget > > use gtk_scrolled_window_add_with_viewport() instead > > Would another libgtk be a better choice to replace libgtk1.1, > and possibly get away from this warning message, or will the source > have to tweaked to avoid this? You'll have to make some changes to the source; they aren't too difficult -- I don't remember specifics, though. I'd stick with gtk (et al) 1.2; things in potato depending on obselete libraries is a Bad Thing when at all avoidable. BTW, debian-gtk-gnome@lists.debian.org is the cannonical place to ask debian-related gtk questions, and it's low-volume now that the Great GNOME Copy is done. (CCed/Reply-toed there.) -=- James Mastros -- First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment, and by then it was too late to say anything at all." -=- Nancy Lebowitz cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/ ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Re: Splitting debian-devel-changes to separate lists
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 03:37:32PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 12:59:12PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > :0 > > * ^Subject:.*\((alpha|arm|powerpc|m68k|sparc)\) > > /dev/null > > A slight mod: > > :0 > * ^Subject:.*\((alpha|arm|powerpc|m68k|sparc)\) > * !^Subject:.*source > /dev/null The second regex would seem to be unnecessary; the '|'s will allow only one, and exactly one, of the choices, and the parens are right next to the or-list. I'm using this: :0 * ^Subject:[[:space:]]*Uploaded [1-90.-+][[:space:]]\((alpha|arm|powerpc|m68k|sparc|hurd-i386)\) /dev/null This is more specific, and therefor less likely to catch other mail. (also, I added hurd-i386 to the list -- forgot that one.) -=- James Mastros -- First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment, and by then it was too late to say anything at all." -=- Nancy Lebowitz cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/ ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Slink compiles [was: Re: Release Plans (1999-05-10)]
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 02:40:33PM -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> Propose it on -Policy and be sure the cc' the ftpmasters. An issue to
> consider is manpower. Since most of the maintainers will up to Potato,
> who'll compile these new packages/updates for slink?
Can't autobuilders do it (with a source-only upload)?
-=- James Mastros
--
First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I
wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept
quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment,
and by then it was too late to say anything at all."
-=- Nancy Lebowitz
cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/
ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
