missing bug report email messages

[sharkey]

Hi,

I'm a relatively new Debian maintainer, and I've now had several bugs filed
against some of my packages for which I never received email notification.
I've also had bugs filed for which I have received notification.  I
was just wondering if anyone else out there was having problems with bug
notifications or if it's just me.

For example, my package cabextract 0.1-1 had one (big) bug for which three
different people were kind enough to submit bug reports (82870,82887,
83237) as well as one unrelated bug (82794).  Out of these four reports,
I only received notification for 83237, the others entered the bug tracking
system silently.  I noticed similar problems with bugs filed against
one of my other packages.

It seems to me that there's a time window between the upload of a new
package and the BTS's awareness of who that package belongs to.  If a
user files a report during the first few days of the existence of a new
package, the reports don't get sent.

Is this a known problem?

Eric

Re: looking for chbg sponsor

[Christian T. Steigies]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:23:06PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:26:32AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > Jochen, I get this from lintian:
> > N: unknown interpreter
> > [repeat N times]
> > W: chbg: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link
> 
> You haven't got the latest version of lintian. Upgrade it and try again;
> lintian was giving false negatives for the usr-doc-link for a while.
Its the woody version... but you seem to be right. The link is there, still
lintian complains. Sorry, Jochen.

Christian
-- 
First they ignore you. Then they laugh about you. Then they fight you. 
And then you win. [Mahatma Gandhi]  http://people.debian.org/~cts/

Re: the incoming queue for non-US?

[Henrique M Holschuh]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> In Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:29:21 +0100 Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum 
> veritate scripsit :
> > There's no public access to non-US Incoming AFAIR. Anyway, you should
> > get a
> > REJECT email from dinstall if the package gets rejected and you're
> > listed as
> > its maintainer... or something like that.
> 
> AFAIK a sponsored upload means all the email is received by the sponser,
> and not the sponsored.

Not really. If the sponsor does not change the changelog entry, email
goes to whomever is listed there (at least that's how it behaved the last
time I sponsored someone).

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


pgps8w4o8vyk3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: looking for chbg sponsor

[Ralf Treinen]

> Stupid question, its ok that applicants look for sponsors before they have
> been assigned an AM? I'm just curious, because I just uploaded such a
> package...

It is in fact most welcome.

-Ralf.

missing bug report email messages

[sharkey]

Hi,

I'm a relatively new Debian maintainer, and I've now had several bugs filed
against some of my packages for which I never received email notification.
I've also had bugs filed for which I have received notification.  I
was just wondering if anyone else out there was having problems with bug
notifications or if it's just me.

For example, my package cabextract 0.1-1 had one (big) bug for which three
different people were kind enough to submit bug reports (82870,82887,
83237) as well as one unrelated bug (82794).  Out of these four reports,
I only received notification for 83237, the others entered the bug tracking
system silently.  I noticed similar problems with bugs filed against
one of my other packages.

It seems to me that there's a time window between the upload of a new
package and the BTS's awareness of who that package belongs to.  If a
user files a report during the first few days of the existence of a new
package, the reports don't get sent.

Is this a known problem?

Eric


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: the incoming queue for non-US?

[Junichi Uekawa]

In Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:29:21 +0100 Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate 
scripsit :

> > what i'd like to do is to check what has been uploaded by my sponsor
> and to
> > look at the reports in case of rejection.
> > 
> > for main i look at http://incoming.debian.org, for non-US?
> 
> There's no public access to non-US Incoming AFAIR. Anyway, you should
> get a
> REJECT email from dinstall if the package gets rejected and you're
> listed as
> its maintainer... or something like that.

AFAIK a sponsored upload means all the email is received by the sponser,
and not the sponsored.

i.e. the sponsored person has a very difficult time without
any clue.


# and no, non-developer cannot do "dinstall -n" or anything fancy like that.


regards,
junichi

--
University: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Netfort: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
dancer, a.k.a. Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
 Dept. of Knowledge Engineering and Computer Science, Doshisha University.

Re: Packaging for X/SVGA/Console

[Gustavo Noronha Silva \(KoV\)]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:21:38PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Allen wrote:
> This means that when a package produces one binary which can optionally
> have X support (like gnuplot), it should have it. In your case (and mine,
> lxdoom), separate binaries are produced with differing support; the svgalib 
> binary is useless to an m68k user, for example, so have separate packages,
> and make the svgalib package Architecture: i386 only (since that's the
> same as svgalibg1).
I'm making a package, called prozilla, it may be compiled with and without
Gtk support, (Gtk means X here right?), both compilations produces the
same binary file 'proz', I would like to make 2 packages for it, one
with gtk (prozilla-gtk) and one without it (prozilla), cause I don't think
it is right to have a downloader wich can be runned in console depending
on libgtk1.2 if you don't want to use gtk... what is the right thing?

I think here of a person who doesn't use X, in a 486, for example, but
wants to use prozilla, It is not a good think for he/she to install 
libgtk1.2 just for this right?

[]s!

-- 
Gustavo Noronha Silva - kov
/***  .''`.
* http://www.metainfo.org/kov  * : :'  :
* GPG Key: http://www.metainfo.org/kov/html/pgp.html   * `. `'`
* http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=2448987 *   `-
***/ Debian


pgp5iN1Qm3XEY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: looking for chbg sponsor

[Christian T. Steigies]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:23:06PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:26:32AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > Jochen, I get this from lintian:
> > N: unknown interpreter
> > [repeat N times]
> > W: chbg: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link
> 
> You haven't got the latest version of lintian. Upgrade it and try again;
> lintian was giving false negatives for the usr-doc-link for a while.
Its the woody version... but you seem to be right. The link is there, still
lintian complains. Sorry, Jochen.

Christian
-- 
First they ignore you. Then they laugh about you. Then they fight you. 
And then you win. [Mahatma Gandhi]  http://people.debian.org/~cts/


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: the incoming queue for non-US?

[Henrique M Holschuh]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> In Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:29:21 +0100 Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate 
>scripsit :
> > There's no public access to non-US Incoming AFAIR. Anyway, you should
> > get a
> > REJECT email from dinstall if the package gets rejected and you're
> > listed as
> > its maintainer... or something like that.
> 
> AFAIK a sponsored upload means all the email is received by the sponser,
> and not the sponsored.

Not really. If the sponsor does not change the changelog entry, email
goes to whomever is listed there (at least that's how it behaved the last
time I sponsored someone).

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

 PGP signature

Re: looking for chbg sponsor

[Ralf Treinen]

> Stupid question, its ok that applicants look for sponsors before they have
> been assigned an AM? I'm just curious, because I just uploaded such a
> package...

It is in fact most welcome.

-Ralf.




--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: the incoming queue for non-US?

[Junichi Uekawa]

In Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:29:21 +0100 Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate 
scripsit :

> > what i'd like to do is to check what has been uploaded by my sponsor
> and to
> > look at the reports in case of rejection.
> > 
> > for main i look at http://incoming.debian.org, for non-US?
> 
> There's no public access to non-US Incoming AFAIR. Anyway, you should
> get a
> REJECT email from dinstall if the package gets rejected and you're
> listed as
> its maintainer... or something like that.

AFAIK a sponsored upload means all the email is received by the sponser,
and not the sponsored.

i.e. the sponsored person has a very difficult time without
any clue.


# and no, non-developer cannot do "dinstall -n" or anything fancy like that.


regards,
junichi

--
University: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Netfort: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
dancer, a.k.a. Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
 Dept. of Knowledge Engineering and Computer Science, Doshisha University.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Packaging for X/SVGA/Console

[Gustavo Noronha Silva (KoV)]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:21:38PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Allen wrote:
> This means that when a package produces one binary which can optionally
> have X support (like gnuplot), it should have it. In your case (and mine,
> lxdoom), separate binaries are produced with differing support; the svgalib 
> binary is useless to an m68k user, for example, so have separate packages,
> and make the svgalib package Architecture: i386 only (since that's the
> same as svgalibg1).
I'm making a package, called prozilla, it may be compiled with and without
Gtk support, (Gtk means X here right?), both compilations produces the
same binary file 'proz', I would like to make 2 packages for it, one
with gtk (prozilla-gtk) and one without it (prozilla), cause I don't think
it is right to have a downloader wich can be runned in console depending
on libgtk1.2 if you don't want to use gtk... what is the right thing?

I think here of a person who doesn't use X, in a 486, for example, but
wants to use prozilla, It is not a good think for he/she to install 
libgtk1.2 just for this right?

[]s!

-- 
Gustavo Noronha Silva - kov
/***  .''`.
* http://www.metainfo.org/kov  * : :'  :
* GPG Key: http://www.metainfo.org/kov/html/pgp.html   * `. `'`
* http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=2448987 *   `-
***/ Debian

 PGP signature

Re: Building: w or w/o Stripping, w or w/o debugging symbols

[Colin Watson]

Florian Hinzmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24-Jan-2001 Colin Watson wrote:
>> Section 4.1 of policy 3.2.0.0/3.2.1.0, or section 11.1 of policy 3.2.1.2
>> now that the packaging manual has been merged.
>
>Oh, merged? So all important information included in
>the Packaging manual should be present in the Policy now?
>Or is this work in progress?

As far as I know it's still a work in progress, at least judging by the
changelog comments; when the version number is increased to 3.2.2.0 or
above I think that would mean a more confident change.

>Is it okay to include this "magic" in configure target or 
>does it have to be in build for some reason?

Most of the example code I showed was just setting Makefile variables,
so it should go outside any targets (normally near the top of
debian/rules). Depending on the structure of the upstream Makefile, you
might need to arrange for those parameters to be passed to it in some
other way. It varies from package to package.

-- 
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: the incoming queue for non-US?

[Josip Rodin]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:43:29PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > > i'm looking for the incoming queue for non-US. as i see in the debian
> > > developer reference, it seems it is reserved only for debian developer.
> > 
> > All of the upload queues are reserved for developers. The indirect queues
> > will allow anonymous FTP uploads, but the uploads will not actually
> > be processed and installed into Debian without a PGP or GPG signature
> > from a Debian developer.
> 
> what i'd like to do is to check what has been uploaded by my sponsor and to
> look at the reports in case of rejection.
> 
> for main i look at http://incoming.debian.org, for non-US?

There's no public access to non-US Incoming AFAIR. Anyway, you should get a
REJECT email from dinstall if the package gets rejected and you're listed as
its maintainer... or something like that.

-- 
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification

Re: looking for chbg sponsor

[Joe Drew]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:26:32AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Jochen, I get this from lintian:
> N: unknown interpreter
> [repeat N times]
> W: chbg: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link

You haven't got the latest version of lintian. Upgrade it and try again;
lintian was giving false negatives for the usr-doc-link for a while.

Re: Packaging for X/SVGA/Console

[Joe Drew]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Allen wrote:
> As part of my new-maintainer process tasks, I'm packaging z81, a
> Sinclair ZX81/ZX80 emulator.  The emulator provides three binaries: a
> X version (xz81), an SVGA version (z81) and a linux-console version
> (z81txt).
[snip policy]
> I've given the z81 package priority 'optional', since this seems to be
> the priority given to other emulator packages (e.g., simh, dosemu);
> I would thus read the above passage as a stricture *against* building
> separate packages for the X and SVGA versions (three in all).  Can
> someone confirm this?  (And/or provide justification?)

This means that when a package produces one binary which can optionally
have X support (like gnuplot), it should have it. In your case (and mine,
lxdoom), separate binaries are produced with differing support; the svgalib 
binary is useless to an m68k user, for example, so have separate packages,
and make the svgalib package Architecture: i386 only (since that's the
same as svgalibg1).

> Second, the text mode version isn't an ncurses program, but instead
> uses /dev/vcsa0 - which I don't actually have!  I do have /dev/vcsa
> and /dev/vcsa1-63, but no 0.  According to the z81 documentation,
> these devices "linux virtual consoles" (but are somehow different from
> /dev/ttyN ??), but I don't seem to have a man page.
> 
> Should I point the console version at /dev/vcsa instead?  Help!

This I can't help much on, except to say that my devfs system does not
have a vcsa0, either. vcsa sounds right.

Re: Correct section for freeswan ?

[Josip Rodin]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 03:38:09PM +0100, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> What is the correct section for the freeswan (IPSec) package ? My sponsor
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh uploaded the package to non-US, but it does not 
> get
> installed into unstable (since about a week). Currently the section is simply
> set to non-US, because lintian complained about non-US/net with "unkown
> section". 

non-US/main/net should be working... and lintian can be wrong sometimes, too.

-- 
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification

Re: debian infrastructure out of sync? where's the reference debian package archive?

[Josip Rodin]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:39:56PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> A user reported to me that he can't find libstl for unstable. I checked
> and it was available on my mirror and I told him so thinking maybe it was
> a problem with pools and the package being somewhere in the middle of a
> transfer. Upon which he later reported that it even wasn't available on
> the main debian server (ftp.debian.org). I checked again later and it was
> there, but:
> 
> http://packages.debian.org/unstable/text/xxdiff.html
> 
> is still listing libstlport as NOT AVAILABLE, but:
> 
> http://cgi.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=libstl&searchon=names&version=all&release=all
> 
> on the contrary says it's there.

Yes, but had you tried to download it, it would have failed. The web pages
for removed packages don't get removed automatically, unfortunately; I have
some idea how to fix that, we'll see.

> Any comments? Is there anybody particular I should tell/bug about this?

Change the dependencies of your package to list libstlport41 or something?

-- 
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification

Re: Building: w or w/o Stripping, w or w/o debugging symbols

[Florian Hinzmann]

Hi!


On 24-Jan-2001 Colin Watson wrote:

> Section 4.1 of policy 3.2.0.0/3.2.1.0, or section 11.1 of policy 3.2.1.2
> now that the packaging manual has been merged.

Oh, merged? So all important information included in
the Packaging manual should be present in the Policy now?
Or is this work in progress?

Thanks for your hint, BTW. 


Is it okay to include this "magic" in configure target or 
does it have to be in build for some reason?


  TIA
 Florian


--
  Florian Hinzmann  private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP-Key fingerprint: DD 61 74 34 04 FB 8A BD  43 54 83 38 0C 82 EF B1

Re: looking for chbg sponsor

[Junichi Uekawa]

In Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:26:32 -0600 "Christian T. Steigies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
cum veritate scripsit :

Hello,

> Stupid question, its ok that applicants look for sponsors before they
> have
> been assigned an AM? I'm just curious, because I just uploaded such a
> package...

I have no clue whether that is okay or not, but
I was sponsored even before entering the NM database as 
waiting for AM to be assigned.



regards,
junichi

--
University: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Netfort: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
dancer, a.k.a. Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
 Dept. of Knowledge Engineering and Computer Science, Doshisha University.

Re: looking for chbg sponsor

[Christian T. Steigies]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 05:50:53PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I intend to pick up the orphaned chbg package
> and tried to pack the new upstream release.
> The files are at
> 
> http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/chbg/
> 
> Would anybody sponsor the package?

Stupid question, its ok that applicants look for sponsors before they have
been assigned an AM? I'm just curious, because I just uploaded such a
package...

Jochen, I get this from lintian:
N: unknown interpreter
[repeat N times]
W: chbg: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link

If you fix this, I might make the upload (if its ok...)
Christian

Re: chroot and FHS

[Ingo Saitz]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 02:50:46PM +0100, Christian Hammers wrote:
> I like to build my mysql package with chroot support and therfore jail it
> somewhere under /var/lib/mysql and link the log files to /var/log.

Do you plan to make them officially available in debian?

> I either statically link it so that it can be run from /usr/sbin and then
> live in /var/lib because I don't want to have binaries in /var  or
> hardlink the libs from /usr/lib and /lib to /var/lib/mysql? 
> Without trying it out I would say that the latter way is preferred, isn't it?

No of course not! Just consider an attacker breaking your mysql
daemon and gaining root, she will have access to system wide
libraries! This would defeat the purpose of a chroot environment.

You either have to copy the libraries into the chroot environment
or provide a statically linked binary. Also, remember to not to
start mysql with a working directory outside the chroot.

Ingo
-- 
16  Hard coded constant for amount of room allowed for
cache align and faster forwarding (tunable)

-- seen in /usr/src/linux-2.2.14/net/TUNABLE

looking for chbg sponsor

[Jochen Voss]

Hi,

I intend to pick up the orphaned chbg package
and tried to pack the new upstream release.
The files are at

http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/chbg/

Would anybody sponsor the package?

Jochen
-- 
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/


pgp0UNOS00OTR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Building: w or w/o Stripping, w or w/o debugging symbols

[Colin Watson]

Florian Hinzmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24-Jan-2001 Colin Watson wrote:
>> Section 4.1 of policy 3.2.0.0/3.2.1.0, or section 11.1 of policy 3.2.1.2
>> now that the packaging manual has been merged.
>
>Oh, merged? So all important information included in
>the Packaging manual should be present in the Policy now?
>Or is this work in progress?

As far as I know it's still a work in progress, at least judging by the
changelog comments; when the version number is increased to 3.2.2.0 or
above I think that would mean a more confident change.

>Is it okay to include this "magic" in configure target or 
>does it have to be in build for some reason?

Most of the example code I showed was just setting Makefile variables,
so it should go outside any targets (normally near the top of
debian/rules). Depending on the structure of the upstream Makefile, you
might need to arrange for those parameters to be passed to it in some
other way. It varies from package to package.

-- 
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Packaging for X/SVGA/Console

[Christopher Allen]

As part of my new-maintainer process tasks, I'm packaging z81, a
Sinclair ZX81/ZX80 emulator.  The emulator provides three binaries: a
X version (xz81), an SVGA version (z81) and a linux-console version
(z81txt).

I have a few questions about how to properly package these.

First, about the X version.  Debian Policy 12.8 reads (in part):

Programs that may be configured with support for the X Window
System must be configured to do so and must declare any package
dependencies necessary to satisfy their runtime requirements when
using the X Window System, unless the package in question is of
standard or higher priority, in which case X-specific binaries may
be split into a separate package, or alternative versions of the
package with X support may be provided.[24]

I've given the z81 package priority 'optional', since this seems to be
the priority given to other emulator packages (e.g., simh, dosemu);
I would thus read the above passage as a stricture *against* building
separate packages for the X and SVGA versions (three in all).  Can
someone confirm this?  (And/or provide justification?)

My inclination (and that of my AM as well) was to build split
packages, but it looks like we're wrong.


Second, the text mode version isn't an ncurses program, but instead
uses /dev/vcsa0 - which I don't actually have!  I do have /dev/vcsa
and /dev/vcsa1-63, but no 0.  According to the z81 documentation,
these devices "linux virtual consoles" (but are somehow different from
/dev/ttyN ??), but I don't seem to have a man page.

Should I point the console version at /dev/vcsa instead?  Help!


Christopher Allen

-- 
Christopher Allen   .   + . -===""===-  c  . 
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *   . . \ \}}
WWW:   http://ruah.dyndns.org/~cpcallen/.   *@-'  .  
snail: 29 Young St. W., Waterloo, ON, N2L 2Y9 Canada  .  *   

Re: the incoming queue for non-US?

[Josip Rodin]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:43:29PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > > i'm looking for the incoming queue for non-US. as i see in the debian
> > > developer reference, it seems it is reserved only for debian developer.
> > 
> > All of the upload queues are reserved for developers. The indirect queues
> > will allow anonymous FTP uploads, but the uploads will not actually
> > be processed and installed into Debian without a PGP or GPG signature
> > from a Debian developer.
> 
> what i'd like to do is to check what has been uploaded by my sponsor and to
> look at the reports in case of rejection.
> 
> for main i look at http://incoming.debian.org, for non-US?

There's no public access to non-US Incoming AFAIR. Anyway, you should get a
REJECT email from dinstall if the package gets rejected and you're listed as
its maintainer... or something like that.

-- 
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: looking for chbg sponsor

[Joe Drew]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:26:32AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Jochen, I get this from lintian:
> N: unknown interpreter
> [repeat N times]
> W: chbg: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link

You haven't got the latest version of lintian. Upgrade it and try again;
lintian was giving false negatives for the usr-doc-link for a while.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Packaging for X/SVGA/Console

[Joe Drew]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Allen wrote:
> As part of my new-maintainer process tasks, I'm packaging z81, a
> Sinclair ZX81/ZX80 emulator.  The emulator provides three binaries: a
> X version (xz81), an SVGA version (z81) and a linux-console version
> (z81txt).
[snip policy]
> I've given the z81 package priority 'optional', since this seems to be
> the priority given to other emulator packages (e.g., simh, dosemu);
> I would thus read the above passage as a stricture *against* building
> separate packages for the X and SVGA versions (three in all).  Can
> someone confirm this?  (And/or provide justification?)

This means that when a package produces one binary which can optionally
have X support (like gnuplot), it should have it. In your case (and mine,
lxdoom), separate binaries are produced with differing support; the svgalib 
binary is useless to an m68k user, for example, so have separate packages,
and make the svgalib package Architecture: i386 only (since that's the
same as svgalibg1).

> Second, the text mode version isn't an ncurses program, but instead
> uses /dev/vcsa0 - which I don't actually have!  I do have /dev/vcsa
> and /dev/vcsa1-63, but no 0.  According to the z81 documentation,
> these devices "linux virtual consoles" (but are somehow different from
> /dev/ttyN ??), but I don't seem to have a man page.
> 
> Should I point the console version at /dev/vcsa instead?  Help!

This I can't help much on, except to say that my devfs system does not
have a vcsa0, either. vcsa sounds right.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Correct section for freeswan ?

[Josip Rodin]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 03:38:09PM +0100, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> What is the correct section for the freeswan (IPSec) package ? My sponsor
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh uploaded the package to non-US, but it does not get
> installed into unstable (since about a week). Currently the section is simply
> set to non-US, because lintian complained about non-US/net with "unkown
> section". 

non-US/main/net should be working... and lintian can be wrong sometimes, too.

-- 
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debian infrastructure out of sync? where's the reference debian package archive?

[Josip Rodin]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:39:56PM +0100, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> A user reported to me that he can't find libstl for unstable. I checked
> and it was available on my mirror and I told him so thinking maybe it was
> a problem with pools and the package being somewhere in the middle of a
> transfer. Upon which he later reported that it even wasn't available on
> the main debian server (ftp.debian.org). I checked again later and it was
> there, but:
> 
> http://packages.debian.org/unstable/text/xxdiff.html
> 
> is still listing libstlport as NOT AVAILABLE, but:
> 
> 
>http://cgi.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=libstl&searchon=names&version=all&release=all
> 
> on the contrary says it's there.

Yes, but had you tried to download it, it would have failed. The web pages
for removed packages don't get removed automatically, unfortunately; I have
some idea how to fix that, we'll see.

> Any comments? Is there anybody particular I should tell/bug about this?

Change the dependencies of your package to list libstlport41 or something?

-- 
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath: please help me to undestand (bug #78232)

[Steve Langasek]

Domenico,

> > Does the shlibs.local file you posted work the way you want it to?  If so,
> oh my shlibs.local works the way i want. it's ok.

> > adding the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to dpkg-shlibdeps will fix the warning message...
> > I don't know what else needs fixing?

> what i want to understand end to fix is this error message.
>^^

When dpkg-shlibdeps looks at a binary, it calls 'ldd' to find out where the
libraries are that the program is linked to.  *Any* libraries that ldd can't
find will generate a warning message.  If you want to get rid of the warning,
just call LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./debian//usr/lib dpkg-shlibdeps in
debian/rules (dh_shlibdeps -l./debian//usr/lib with debhelper).  Since
you're using debian/shlibs.local /anyway/, the warning isn't too dangerous
because you will override what's in the DEBIAN/libcurl.shlibs file; but if you
want the build to be clean, this is how to correct the warning.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Re: Building: w or w/o Stripping, w or w/o debugging symbols

[Florian Hinzmann]

Hi!


On 24-Jan-2001 Colin Watson wrote:

> Section 4.1 of policy 3.2.0.0/3.2.1.0, or section 11.1 of policy 3.2.1.2
> now that the packaging manual has been merged.

Oh, merged? So all important information included in
the Packaging manual should be present in the Policy now?
Or is this work in progress?

Thanks for your hint, BTW. 


Is it okay to include this "magic" in configure target or 
does it have to be in build for some reason?


  TIA
 Florian


--
  Florian Hinzmann  private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP-Key fingerprint: DD 61 74 34 04 FB 8A BD  43 54 83 38 0C 82 EF B1


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: looking for chbg sponsor

[Junichi Uekawa]

In Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:26:32 -0600 "Christian T. Steigies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum 
veritate scripsit :

Hello,

> Stupid question, its ok that applicants look for sponsors before they
> have
> been assigned an AM? I'm just curious, because I just uploaded such a
> package...

I have no clue whether that is okay or not, but
I was sponsored even before entering the NM database as 
waiting for AM to be assigned.



regards,
junichi

--
University: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Netfort: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
dancer, a.k.a. Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
 Dept. of Knowledge Engineering and Computer Science, Doshisha University.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath: please help me to undestand (bug #78232)

[Domenico Andreoli]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 06:30:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 11:39:12AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> 
> > > > uh? how is dpkg-shlibdeps related to libtool?!?
> 
> > > Ah... sorry, I saw two posts from you in a row, and assumed the two were
> > > related.  I guess I replied to the wrong one. :)
> 
> > anyway i was wondering how i can make my curl depends up on a library that 
> > is
> > not in any directoory of my hd? libcurl1 is generate together with curl, but
> > libcurl1-ssl is not. i want curl depends upon one of those libraries.
> 
> Domenico,
Steve,

> 
> This may be too complex for me to help with.  I'm a novice developer, and I
> don't know as much as I'd like to about shlibdeps.
> 
> Does the shlibs.local file you posted work the way you want it to?  If so,
oh my shlibs.local works the way i want. it's ok.

> adding the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to dpkg-shlibdeps will fix the warning message...
> I don't know what else needs fixing?
> 
what i want to understand end to fix is this error message.
   ^^

thanks anyway

-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
 --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
   ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936  4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50


pgpT7BxmELJd6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: looking for chbg sponsor

[Christian T. Steigies]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 05:50:53PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I intend to pick up the orphaned chbg package
> and tried to pack the new upstream release.
> The files are at
> 
> http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/chbg/
> 
> Would anybody sponsor the package?

Stupid question, its ok that applicants look for sponsors before they have
been assigned an AM? I'm just curious, because I just uploaded such a
package...

Jochen, I get this from lintian:
N: unknown interpreter
[repeat N times]
W: chbg: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link

If you fix this, I might make the upload (if its ok...)
Christian


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: chroot and FHS

[Ingo Saitz]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 02:50:46PM +0100, Christian Hammers wrote:
> I like to build my mysql package with chroot support and therfore jail it
> somewhere under /var/lib/mysql and link the log files to /var/log.

Do you plan to make them officially available in debian?

> I either statically link it so that it can be run from /usr/sbin and then
> live in /var/lib because I don't want to have binaries in /var  or
> hardlink the libs from /usr/lib and /lib to /var/lib/mysql? 
> Without trying it out I would say that the latter way is preferred, isn't it?

No of course not! Just consider an attacker breaking your mysql
daemon and gaining root, she will have access to system wide
libraries! This would defeat the purpose of a chroot environment.

You either have to copy the libraries into the chroot environment
or provide a statically linked binary. Also, remember to not to
start mysql with a working directory outside the chroot.

Ingo
-- 
16  Hard coded constant for amount of room allowed for
cache align and faster forwarding (tunable)

-- seen in /usr/src/linux-2.2.14/net/TUNABLE


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

looking for chbg sponsor

[Jochen Voss]

Hi,

I intend to pick up the orphaned chbg package
and tried to pack the new upstream release.
The files are at

http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/chbg/

Would anybody sponsor the package?

Jochen
-- 
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/

 PGP signature

Packaging for X/SVGA/Console

[Christopher Allen]

As part of my new-maintainer process tasks, I'm packaging z81, a
Sinclair ZX81/ZX80 emulator.  The emulator provides three binaries: a
X version (xz81), an SVGA version (z81) and a linux-console version
(z81txt).

I have a few questions about how to properly package these.

First, about the X version.  Debian Policy 12.8 reads (in part):

Programs that may be configured with support for the X Window
System must be configured to do so and must declare any package
dependencies necessary to satisfy their runtime requirements when
using the X Window System, unless the package in question is of
standard or higher priority, in which case X-specific binaries may
be split into a separate package, or alternative versions of the
package with X support may be provided.[24]

I've given the z81 package priority 'optional', since this seems to be
the priority given to other emulator packages (e.g., simh, dosemu);
I would thus read the above passage as a stricture *against* building
separate packages for the X and SVGA versions (three in all).  Can
someone confirm this?  (And/or provide justification?)

My inclination (and that of my AM as well) was to build split
packages, but it looks like we're wrong.


Second, the text mode version isn't an ncurses program, but instead
uses /dev/vcsa0 - which I don't actually have!  I do have /dev/vcsa
and /dev/vcsa1-63, but no 0.  According to the z81 documentation,
these devices "linux virtual consoles" (but are somehow different from
/dev/ttyN ??), but I don't seem to have a man page.

Should I point the console version at /dev/vcsa instead?  Help!


Christopher Allen

-- 
Christopher Allen   .   + . -===""===-  c  . 
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *   . . \ \}}
WWW:   http://ruah.dyndns.org/~cpcallen/.   *@-'  .  
snail: 29 Young St. W., Waterloo, ON, N2L 2Y9 Canada  .  *   


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath: please help me to undestand (bug#78232)

[Steve Langasek]

Domenico,

> > Does the shlibs.local file you posted work the way you want it to?  If so,
> oh my shlibs.local works the way i want. it's ok.

> > adding the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to dpkg-shlibdeps will fix the warning message...
> > I don't know what else needs fixing?

> what i want to understand end to fix is this error message.
>^^

When dpkg-shlibdeps looks at a binary, it calls 'ldd' to find out where the
libraries are that the program is linked to.  *Any* libraries that ldd can't
find will generate a warning message.  If you want to get rid of the warning,
just call LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./debian//usr/lib dpkg-shlibdeps in
debian/rules (dh_shlibdeps -l./debian//usr/lib with debhelper).  Since
you're using debian/shlibs.local /anyway/, the warning isn't too dangerous
because you will override what's in the DEBIAN/libcurl.shlibs file; but if you
want the build to be clean, this is how to correct the warning.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath: please help me to undestand (bug #78232)

[Domenico Andreoli]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 06:30:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 11:39:12AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> 
> > > > uh? how is dpkg-shlibdeps related to libtool?!?
> 
> > > Ah... sorry, I saw two posts from you in a row, and assumed the two were
> > > related.  I guess I replied to the wrong one. :)
> 
> > anyway i was wondering how i can make my curl depends up on a library that is
> > not in any directoory of my hd? libcurl1 is generate together with curl, but
> > libcurl1-ssl is not. i want curl depends upon one of those libraries.
> 
> Domenico,
Steve,

> 
> This may be too complex for me to help with.  I'm a novice developer, and I
> don't know as much as I'd like to about shlibdeps.
> 
> Does the shlibs.local file you posted work the way you want it to?  If so,
oh my shlibs.local works the way i want. it's ok.

> adding the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to dpkg-shlibdeps will fix the warning message...
> I don't know what else needs fixing?
> 
what i want to understand end to fix is this error message.
   ^^

thanks anyway

-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
 --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
   ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936  4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50

 PGP signature

Re: the incoming queue for non-US?

[Domenico Andreoli]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 09:06:18PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 05:36:38PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > i'm looking for the incoming queue for non-US. as i see in the debian
> > developer reference, it seems it is reserved only for debian developer.
> 
> All of the upload queues are reserved for developers. The indirect queues
> will allow anonymous FTP uploads, but the uploads will not actually
> be processed and installed into Debian without a PGP or GPG signature
> from a Debian developer.
> 

yes i know, that's right.

what i'd like to do is to check what has been uploaded by my sponsor and to
look at the reports in case of rejection.

for main i look at http://incoming.debian.org, for non-US?



-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
 --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
   ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936  4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50


pgpOSjUYi5JiJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: the incoming queue for non-US?

[Domenico Andreoli]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 09:06:18PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 05:36:38PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > i'm looking for the incoming queue for non-US. as i see in the debian
> > developer reference, it seems it is reserved only for debian developer.
> 
> All of the upload queues are reserved for developers. The indirect queues
> will allow anonymous FTP uploads, but the uploads will not actually
> be processed and installed into Debian without a PGP or GPG signature
> from a Debian developer.
> 

yes i know, that's right.

what i'd like to do is to check what has been uploaded by my sponsor and to
look at the reports in case of rejection.

for main i look at http://incoming.debian.org, for non-US?



-[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
 --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
   ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936  4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50

 PGP signature

Re: Source package policy problem.

[Adam McKenna]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 03:15:14AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   Oh, for heavens sake. Start a fresh directory, called
>  foo-installer. Create a ./debian directory. create a script that 
>  called create-foo-pkg-now (or something you like better); Also create 
>  ./debis-dir-for-foo/debian. 

OK, it's fixed now.  Package is in incoming.

Thanks,

--Adam

-- 
Adam McKenna  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: the incoming queue for non-US?

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 05:36:38PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> i'm looking for the incoming queue for non-US. as i see in the debian
> developer reference, it seems it is reserved only for debian developer.

All of the upload queues are reserved for developers. The indirect queues
will allow anonymous FTP uploads, but the uploads will not actually
be processed and installed into Debian without a PGP or GPG signature
from a Debian developer.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Source package policy problem.

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Adam" == Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 >> Uhh, why are there no redistribution terms on your package?
 >> (and since you do not in any way, shape, or form include Dan's
 >> code, your code is all that is in the  package)

 Adam> There aren't any.  The problem is that the "source package"
 Adam> that I use to build the installer package contains the original
 Adam> source

Uhh, why? 


 Adam> (the .diff.gz needs to be included in the installer
 Adam> package)..

Which diff.gz file is this? 

 Adam> That source package cannot be uploaded to debian
 Adam> machines, or redistributed at all for that matter.  So, I am in

So the source for your package can't be distributed at all?
 Just because you dumped the original, undistributable source in there
 with your installer package? Don't do that, then.

 Adam> the (somewhat unique) position of having a package that has no
 Adam> .orig.tar.gz.

That is not very unique. Every single debian specific package
 is in the same boat. 

 Adam> Really, the only solution I can come up with is to make the
 Adam> .dsc, .changes, and .diff file separately, and manually copy
 Adam> them over to a second build dir where I make the installer

This is wrong, and a violation of policy in any case.

 Adam> package.  So, I was hoping for a more automated way of doing
 Adam> this.

Oh, for heavens sake. Start a fresh directory, called
 foo-installer. Create a ./debian directory. create a script that 
 called create-foo-pkg-now (or something you like better); Also create 
 ./debis-dir-for-foo/debian. 

You installer package shall then have this in the .deb:
  /usr/bin/create-foo-pkg-now
  /usr/share/man/man1/create-foo-pkg-now.1.gz
  /usr/share/foo-installer/debian.tar,gz
  /usr/share/doc/foo-installer/copyright et al

There is no orig.tar,gz, or a diff file, and by no means you
 ship Dan's code with you package. 


Now, the users can run the script /usr/bin/create-foo-pkg-now
 when they wish, and what this script does is this:
==
 Firstly, it creates a directory, say /tmp/foo-installer-$$ (iff the
 dir does not exist, and bailing on error). 

 Next, it
a) downloads foo using wget or something, or
b) requires the pathname of the location that the admin has
   downloaded sources into. 

 Next, it uncompresses the sources located in the previous step

 Next, it chages directory into the unpacked source dir (dpkg-source
 provides an example)
# cd foo-X.X.XX

 Then,
# tar zvvfx /usr/share/foo/debian.tar.gz
 which unpacks into ./debian

 Then run dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot or something, and you are
 done. 

==
 The user then installs ../foo_blah.deb

manoj
-- 
 Date: 18 Apr 90 23:02:31 GMT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal
 Schwartz) $_='vec(1,1,1); print substr($_ ^
 "<\020\020\134\021M_CEA^RP\042\014\034\030\000\033\024\001\030\
 021\000\004",0,25)'; eval
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Source package policy problem.

[Adam McKenna]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 03:15:14AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   Oh, for heavens sake. Start a fresh directory, called
>  foo-installer. Create a ./debian directory. create a script that 
>  called create-foo-pkg-now (or something you like better); Also create 
>  ./debis-dir-for-foo/debian. 

OK, it's fixed now.  Package is in incoming.

Thanks,

--Adam

-- 
Adam McKenna  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: the incoming queue for non-US?

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 05:36:38PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> i'm looking for the incoming queue for non-US. as i see in the debian
> developer reference, it seems it is reserved only for debian developer.

All of the upload queues are reserved for developers. The indirect queues
will allow anonymous FTP uploads, but the uploads will not actually
be processed and installed into Debian without a PGP or GPG signature
from a Debian developer.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Virtual Packages

[Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho]

On 20010125T195935+0200, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> Where are each virtual package capabilities listed?
> I mean, something like: to provide a "mail-transport-agent",
> there must be a /usr/lib/sendmail, which accepts the following options.

Does nobody read policy anymore?

Policy Manual, section 12.6.  Although it does not seem to define the set
of options /usr/sbin/sendmail should support (I'd assume that sendmail
is the reference implementation, so go from there).

-- 
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%

 Keep the Deja Archive Alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html

Re: Source package policy problem.

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Adam" == Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 >> Uhh, why are there no redistribution terms on your package?
 >> (and since you do not in any way, shape, or form include Dan's
 >> code, your code is all that is in the  package)

 Adam> There aren't any.  The problem is that the "source package"
 Adam> that I use to build the installer package contains the original
 Adam> source

Uhh, why? 


 Adam> (the .diff.gz needs to be included in the installer
 Adam> package)..

Which diff.gz file is this? 

 Adam> That source package cannot be uploaded to debian
 Adam> machines, or redistributed at all for that matter.  So, I am in

So the source for your package can't be distributed at all?
 Just because you dumped the original, undistributable source in there
 with your installer package? Don't do that, then.

 Adam> the (somewhat unique) position of having a package that has no
 Adam> .orig.tar.gz.

That is not very unique. Every single debian specific package
 is in the same boat. 

 Adam> Really, the only solution I can come up with is to make the
 Adam> .dsc, .changes, and .diff file separately, and manually copy
 Adam> them over to a second build dir where I make the installer

This is wrong, and a violation of policy in any case.

 Adam> package.  So, I was hoping for a more automated way of doing
 Adam> this.

Oh, for heavens sake. Start a fresh directory, called
 foo-installer. Create a ./debian directory. create a script that 
 called create-foo-pkg-now (or something you like better); Also create 
 ./debis-dir-for-foo/debian. 

You installer package shall then have this in the .deb:
  /usr/bin/create-foo-pkg-now
  /usr/share/man/man1/create-foo-pkg-now.1.gz
  /usr/share/foo-installer/debian.tar,gz
  /usr/share/doc/foo-installer/copyright et al

There is no orig.tar,gz, or a diff file, and by no means you
 ship Dan's code with you package. 


Now, the users can run the script /usr/bin/create-foo-pkg-now
 when they wish, and what this script does is this:
==
 Firstly, it creates a directory, say /tmp/foo-installer-$$ (iff the
 dir does not exist, and bailing on error). 

 Next, it
a) downloads foo using wget or something, or
b) requires the pathname of the location that the admin has
   downloaded sources into. 

 Next, it uncompresses the sources located in the previous step

 Next, it chages directory into the unpacked source dir (dpkg-source
 provides an example)
# cd foo-X.X.XX

 Then,
# tar zvvfx /usr/share/foo/debian.tar.gz
 which unpacks into ./debian

 Then run dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot or something, and you are
 done. 

==
 The user then installs ../foo_blah.deb

manoj
-- 
 Date: 18 Apr 90 23:02:31 GMT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal
 Schwartz) $_='vec(1,1,1); print substr($_ ^
 "<\020\020\134\021M_CEA^RP\042\014\034\030\000\033\024\001\030\
 021\000\004",0,25)'; eval
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]