Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Sven LUTHER]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Ivo Timmermans wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > or build dependencies on debhelper (>>3.0)
> > 
> > Yes, but since i want ot build the package on both potato and unstable, this
> > will not help.
> 
> Why exactly?  It's not a crime to create two separate packages; one
> for stable and one for unstable.  You can change the build
> dependencies to match the distribution.

Well, the idea is to have only one package for both, this make things simpler,
create less work for me, and should be more error proof in general.

Anyway, forking a package for 2 lines difference in the debian/rules file, and
different build-depends don't seem worth it for me.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: Undocumented binary

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010403 18:45]:
> > Maybe all manpage needing binaries could be listed somewhere, and
> > we could | have a manpage writing task ?
> 
> http://qa.debian.org/man-pages.html

The web page now shows who is working on the man pages for a package,
so we can coordinate our efforts better.  Jérôme Marant has agreed
to maintain the database on who is working on what.  If you want to
work on a package, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and your name
will be listed on the web site. (We consider making it automatic, e.g.
by signing up on the web page, but let's see first how it works out).

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cvs-- can't remember initial vendor tag

[Julian Gilbey]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 08:31:27PM -0400, Chris Ruffin wrote:
> 
> How can I extract the vendor tag information from a CVS module?  I'm
> trying to import new upstream sources but I can't remember the initial
> vendor tag that I used to import previous versions!

Does "cvs status -v" help you?

   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
   Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/

Re: Undocumented binary

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010403 18:45]:
> > Maybe all manpage needing binaries could be listed somewhere, and
> > we could | have a manpage writing task ?
> 
> http://qa.debian.org/man-pages.html

The web page now shows who is working on the man pages for a package,
so we can coordinate our efforts better.  Jérôme Marant has agreed
to maintain the database on who is working on what.  If you want to
work on a package, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and your name
will be listed on the web site. (We consider making it automatic, e.g.
by signing up on the web page, but let's see first how it works out).

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: cvs-- can't remember initial vendor tag

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Chris" == Chris Ruffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Chris> How can I extract the vendor tag information from a CVS module?  I'm
 Chris> trying to import new upstream sources but I can't remember the initial
 Chris> vendor tag that I used to import previous versions!

 cvs status -v ; or just less /path/to/repository/filename,v

manoj
-- 
 You will wish you hadn't.
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: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Ivo Timmermans]

Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:16:57PM +0200, Ivo Timmermans wrote:
> > dh_testversion
> 
> erm, ... this is told to be depredated (or whatever is the correct writting of
> this word) by the build dependency stuff. It also don't seems to do anything
> on a unstable system.

AFAIK, no-one will stop you from using it.


> > or build dependencies on debhelper (>>3.0)
> 
> Yes, but since i want ot build the package on both potato and unstable, this
> will not help.

Why exactly?  It's not a crime to create two separate packages; one
for stable and one for unstable.  You can change the build
dependencies to match the distribution.


Ivo

-- 
Um den Elefanten durch den Zoll zu schmuggeln, hatte Rasmus ihn als
Schäferhund verkleidet.

Re: cvs-- can't remember initial vendor tag

[Julian Gilbey]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 08:31:27PM -0400, Chris Ruffin wrote:
> 
> How can I extract the vendor tag information from a CVS module?  I'm
> trying to import new upstream sources but I can't remember the initial
> vendor tag that I used to import previous versions!

Does "cvs status -v" help you?

   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
   Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/


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

Re: Undocumented binary

[peter karlsson]

Steve M. Robbins:

> The undocumented page provides no more information than "No manual
> entry for foo" (but the former is much longer to read). What is the
> point?

Personally, I reason that if I get "No manual entry", it is a program
that probably shouldn't have entered myself, but if I get undocumented,
it's something that I can use, but no-one has ever bothered informing
me of it.

-- 
\\//
peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/

  Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swedish law:
  http://www.softwolves.pp.se/peter/reklampost.html

Re: Undocumented binary

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:00:31AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:28:37PM +0200, Dennis Schoen wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:49:41AM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > > 
> > > What is the point?
> > policy :)
> 
> i hate that catch 22.
> 
> can't file a bug, since the package is not in debian[1]
> can't use undocumented, unless you have a bug against it,
> can't leave a manpage out entirely, since it would fail lintian,
> can't get into the archive, unless it is lintian clean
> 
> -john
> 
> [1] okay, you do file a bug against it with the ITP, but that bug is
> against wnpp. somehow, filing a bug against a package that does not
> yet exist seems wrong to me. i end up writing a small man page.
   ^

Precisely: "undocumented" is not a solution, writing the man page
is the solution.

-S

Re: cvs-- can't remember initial vendor tag

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Chris" == Chris Ruffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Chris> How can I extract the vendor tag information from a CVS module?  I'm
 Chris> trying to import new upstream sources but I can't remember the initial
 Chris> vendor tag that I used to import previous versions!

 cvs status -v ; or just less /path/to/repository/filename,v

manoj
-- 
 You will wish you hadn't.
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]

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Ivo Timmermans]

Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:16:57PM +0200, Ivo Timmermans wrote:
> > dh_testversion
> 
> erm, ... this is told to be depredated (or whatever is the correct writting of
> this word) by the build dependency stuff. It also don't seems to do anything
> on a unstable system.

AFAIK, no-one will stop you from using it.


> > or build dependencies on debhelper (>>3.0)
> 
> Yes, but since i want ot build the package on both potato and unstable, this
> will not help.

Why exactly?  It's not a crime to create two separate packages; one
for stable and one for unstable.  You can change the build
dependencies to match the distribution.


Ivo

-- 
Um den Elefanten durch den Zoll zu schmuggeln, hatte Rasmus ihn als
Schäferhund verkleidet.


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

Re: Undocumented binary

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Sven LUTHER 

| Maybe all manpage needing binaries could be listed somewhere, and we could
| have a manpage writing task ?

http://qa.debian.org/man-pages.html

:)

-- 

Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.

Re: Undocumented binary

[John H. Robinson, IV]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:28:37PM +0200, Dennis Schoen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:49:41AM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > 
> > What is the point?
> policy :)

i hate that catch 22.

can't file a bug, since the package is not in debian[1]
can't use undocumented, unless you have a bug against it,
can't leave a manpage out entirely, since it would fail lintian,
can't get into the archive, unless it is lintian clean

-john

[1] okay, you do file a bug against it with the ITP, but that bug is
against wnpp. somehow, filing a bug against a package that does not
yet exist seems wrong to me. i end up writing a small man page.

Re: Undocumented binary

[Sven LUTHER]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:28:37PM +0200, Dennis Schoen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:49:41AM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:23:59PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I have many binaries compiled from my source package and I would like to
> > > attach 'undocumented' man page to these files. How can I do it?
> > 
> > Aigh, no, please don't do that!  
> > Those drive me crazy!!
> > 
> > The undocumented page provides no more information than
> > "No manual entry for foo" (but the former is much longer to 
> > read).  What is the point?
> policy :)

Does the policy not say that all binaries should have a manpage.

having a manpage saying that there is no manpage is the same as having non,
and i think it is not in the spirit of the policy.

Maybe all manpage needing binaries could be listed somewhere, and we could
have a manpage writing task ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Sven LUTHER]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:25:01PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> > The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> > DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> > explain the problem of building on a potato machine.
> 
> If i want to do a package that can be compiled even on a potato machine,
> what I have to do ?

What about testing the content of /etc/debian_version, and if it is potato,
then set DH_COMPAT to 2 ?

(the propper sh stuff is left as an excercice :)))

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Sven LUTHER]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:16:57PM +0200, Ivo Timmermans wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > > I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
> > > > debian/rules.
> > > 
> > > The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> > > DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> > > explain the problem of building on a potato machine.
> > 
> > Is there any way of telling if we are building on a potato system or in a
> > woody or unstable system in the rules file ? This could be handy for other
> > kind of stuff also.
> 
> cat /etc/debian_version

yes, this one could do ...

> dh_testversion

erm, ... this is told to be depredated (or whatever is the correct writting of
this word) by the build dependency stuff. It also don't seems to do anything
on a unstable system.

> or build dependencies on debhelper (>>3.0)

Yes, but since i want ot build the package on both potato and unstable, this
will not help.

Maybe there could be two Build-depends line, one for potato and one for
unstable also, or something such, but then potato apt don't support build
depends yet, so this may be moot.

Anyway, the first solution would be the best one in this case.

Friendly,

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

Re: Undocumented binary

[peter karlsson]

Steve M. Robbins:

> The undocumented page provides no more information than "No manual
> entry for foo" (but the former is much longer to read). What is the
> point?

Personally, I reason that if I get "No manual entry", it is a program
that probably shouldn't have entered myself, but if I get undocumented,
it's something that I can use, but no-one has ever bothered informing
me of it.

-- 
\\//
peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/

  Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swedish law:
  http://www.softwolves.pp.se/peter/reklampost.html


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

Re: Undocumented binary

[Dennis Schoen]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:49:41AM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:23:59PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have many binaries compiled from my source package and I would like to
> > attach 'undocumented' man page to these files. How can I do it?
> 
> Aigh, no, please don't do that!  
> Those drive me crazy!!
> 
> The undocumented page provides no more information than
> "No manual entry for foo" (but the former is much longer to 
> read).  What is the point?
policy :)

Dennis
-- 
"Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is a user-friendly Operating
System. It's just choosy about who its friends are."

Re: Undocumented binary

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:00:31AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:28:37PM +0200, Dennis Schoen wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:49:41AM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > > 
> > > What is the point?
> > policy :)
> 
> i hate that catch 22.
> 
> can't file a bug, since the package is not in debian[1]
> can't use undocumented, unless you have a bug against it,
> can't leave a manpage out entirely, since it would fail lintian,
> can't get into the archive, unless it is lintian clean
> 
> -john
> 
> [1] okay, you do file a bug against it with the ITP, but that bug is
> against wnpp. somehow, filing a bug against a package that does not
> yet exist seems wrong to me. i end up writing a small man page.
   ^

Precisely: "undocumented" is not a solution, writing the man page
is the solution.

-S


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

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> explain the problem of building on a potato machine.

If i want to do a package that can be compiled even on a potato machine,
what I have to do ?

I think about using DH_COMPAT=2 and all the old tools (like
dh_installmanpages instead of dh_installman and so on).
Is something wrong in this approach ?

Exists a way to tell dh_make to use the old tools ?

-- 
- Zack -

Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"


pgpXkKRc4roYv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Undocumented binary

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Sven LUTHER 

| Maybe all manpage needing binaries could be listed somewhere, and we could
| have a manpage writing task ?

http://qa.debian.org/man-pages.html

:)

-- 

Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.


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

Re: Undocumented binary

[John H. Robinson, IV]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:28:37PM +0200, Dennis Schoen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:49:41AM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > 
> > What is the point?
> policy :)

i hate that catch 22.

can't file a bug, since the package is not in debian[1]
can't use undocumented, unless you have a bug against it,
can't leave a manpage out entirely, since it would fail lintian,
can't get into the archive, unless it is lintian clean

-john

[1] okay, you do file a bug against it with the ITP, but that bug is
against wnpp. somehow, filing a bug against a package that does not
yet exist seems wrong to me. i end up writing a small man page.


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

Re: Undocumented binary

[Sven LUTHER]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:28:37PM +0200, Dennis Schoen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:49:41AM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:23:59PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I have many binaries compiled from my source package and I would like to
> > > attach 'undocumented' man page to these files. How can I do it?
> > 
> > Aigh, no, please don't do that!  
> > Those drive me crazy!!
> > 
> > The undocumented page provides no more information than
> > "No manual entry for foo" (but the former is much longer to 
> > read).  What is the point?
> policy :)

Does the policy not say that all binaries should have a manpage.

having a manpage saying that there is no manpage is the same as having non,
and i think it is not in the spirit of the policy.

Maybe all manpage needing binaries could be listed somewhere, and we could
have a manpage writing task ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Sven LUTHER]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:25:01PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> > The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> > DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> > explain the problem of building on a potato machine.
> 
> If i want to do a package that can be compiled even on a potato machine,
> what I have to do ?

What about testing the content of /etc/debian_version, and if it is potato,
then set DH_COMPAT to 2 ?

(the propper sh stuff is left as an excercice :)))

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Sven LUTHER]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:16:57PM +0200, Ivo Timmermans wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > > I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
> > > > debian/rules.
> > > 
> > > The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> > > DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> > > explain the problem of building on a potato machine.
> > 
> > Is there any way of telling if we are building on a potato system or in a
> > woody or unstable system in the rules file ? This could be handy for other
> > kind of stuff also.
> 
> cat /etc/debian_version

yes, this one could do ...

> dh_testversion

erm, ... this is told to be depredated (or whatever is the correct writting of
this word) by the build dependency stuff. It also don't seems to do anything
on a unstable system.

> or build dependencies on debhelper (>>3.0)

Yes, but since i want ot build the package on both potato and unstable, this
will not help.

Maybe there could be two Build-depends line, one for potato and one for
unstable also, or something such, but then potato apt don't support build
depends yet, so this may be moot.

Anyway, the first solution would be the best one in this case.

Friendly,

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


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

Re: Undocumented binary

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:23:59PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have many binaries compiled from my source package and I would like to
> attach 'undocumented' man page to these files. How can I do it?

Aigh, no, please don't do that!  
Those drive me crazy!!

The undocumented page provides no more information than
"No manual entry for foo" (but the former is much longer to 
read).  What is the point?

-S

Re: Undocumented binary

[Ivo Timmermans]

Karel Gardas wrote:
> I have many binaries compiled from my source package and I would like to
> attach 'undocumented' man page to these files. How can I do it?

with dh_undocumented.

A quote from its manpage:

   Note that Debian policy prohibits links to undocumented(7)
   unless the package has an open bug report stating that it
   has no man page. You should really just write a man page
   instead; this program is an easy way out.



-- 
Ivo Timmermans

Re: Undocumented binary

[Dennis Schoen]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:49:41AM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:23:59PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have many binaries compiled from my source package and I would like to
> > attach 'undocumented' man page to these files. How can I do it?
> 
> Aigh, no, please don't do that!  
> Those drive me crazy!!
> 
> The undocumented page provides no more information than
> "No manual entry for foo" (but the former is much longer to 
> read).  What is the point?
policy :)

Dennis
-- 
"Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is a user-friendly Operating
System. It's just choosy about who its friends are."


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

Undocumented binary

[Karel Gardas]

Hi,

I have many binaries compiled from my source package and I would like to
attach 'undocumented' man page to these files. How can I do it?

Thanks,

Karel
--
 Karel Gardas   e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Ivo Timmermans]

Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
> > > debian/rules.
> > 
> > The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> > DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> > explain the problem of building on a potato machine.
> 
> Is there any way of telling if we are building on a potato system or in a
> woody or unstable system in the rules file ? This could be handy for other
> kind of stuff also.

cat /etc/debian_version
dh_testversion
or build dependencies on debhelper (>>3.0)


-- 
Ivo Timmermans

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Sven LUTHER]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
> > debian/rules.
> > Some user report me the impossibility of build the same package from the
> > sources on a debian potato.
> > The compilation fail on dh_clean that right report an error.
> > 
> > If I turn DH_COMPAT to 2 all compile correctly even on a potato.
> > 
> > So, why (and when) I have to use DH_COMPAT=3 ?
> 
> The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> explain the problem of building on a potato machine.

Is there any way of telling if we are building on a potato system or in a
woody or unstable system in the rules file ? This could be handy for other
kind of stuff also.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> explain the problem of building on a potato machine.

If i want to do a package that can be compiled even on a potato machine,
what I have to do ?

I think about using DH_COMPAT=2 and all the old tools (like
dh_installmanpages instead of dh_installman and so on).
Is something wrong in this approach ?

Exists a way to tell dh_make to use the old tools ?

-- 
- Zack -

Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"

 PGP signature

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Gopal Narayanan]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
> debian/rules.
> Some user report me the impossibility of build the same package from the
> sources on a debian potato.
> The compilation fail on dh_clean that right report an error.
> 
> If I turn DH_COMPAT to 2 all compile correctly even on a potato.
> 
> So, why (and when) I have to use DH_COMPAT=3 ?

The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
explain the problem of building on a potato machine.

Gopal.


-- 
Gopal Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Dept. of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Re: Undocumented binary

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 03:23:59PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have many binaries compiled from my source package and I would like to
> attach 'undocumented' man page to these files. How can I do it?

Aigh, no, please don't do that!  
Those drive me crazy!!

The undocumented page provides no more information than
"No manual entry for foo" (but the former is much longer to 
read).  What is the point?

-S


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

Re: Undocumented binary

[Ivo Timmermans]

Karel Gardas wrote:
> I have many binaries compiled from my source package and I would like to
> attach 'undocumented' man page to these files. How can I do it?

with dh_undocumented.

A quote from its manpage:

   Note that Debian policy prohibits links to undocumented(7)
   unless the package has an open bug report stating that it
   has no man page. You should really just write a man page
   instead; this program is an easy way out.



-- 
Ivo Timmermans


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

Undocumented binary

[Karel Gardas]

Hi,

I have many binaries compiled from my source package and I would like to
attach 'undocumented' man page to these files. How can I do it?

Thanks,

Karel
--
 Karel Gardas   e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



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

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Ivo Timmermans]

Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
> > > debian/rules.
> > 
> > The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> > DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> > explain the problem of building on a potato machine.
> 
> Is there any way of telling if we are building on a potato system or in a
> woody or unstable system in the rules file ? This could be handy for other
> kind of stuff also.

cat /etc/debian_version
dh_testversion
or build dependencies on debhelper (>>3.0)


-- 
Ivo Timmermans


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

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Sven LUTHER]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:04:41AM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
> > debian/rules.
> > Some user report me the impossibility of build the same package from the
> > sources on a debian potato.
> > The compilation fail on dh_clean that right report an error.
> > 
> > If I turn DH_COMPAT to 2 all compile correctly even on a potato.
> > 
> > So, why (and when) I have to use DH_COMPAT=3 ?
> 
> The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
> DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
> explain the problem of building on a potato machine.

Is there any way of telling if we are building on a potato system or in a
woody or unstable system in the rules file ? This could be handy for other
kind of stuff also.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Gopal Narayanan]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
> debian/rules.
> Some user report me the impossibility of build the same package from the
> sources on a debian potato.
> The compilation fail on dh_clean that right report an error.
> 
> If I turn DH_COMPAT to 2 all compile correctly even on a potato.
> 
> So, why (and when) I have to use DH_COMPAT=3 ?

The version of debhelper on potato does not recognize
DH_COMPAT=3. That is a feature in the debhelper ver >3.0. That may
explain the problem of building on a potato machine.

Gopal.


-- 
Gopal Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Dept. of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst


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

DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
debian/rules.
Some user report me the impossibility of build the same package from the
sources on a debian potato.
The compilation fail on dh_clean that right report an error.

If I turn DH_COMPAT to 2 all compile correctly even on a potato.

So, why (and when) I have to use DH_COMPAT=3 ?

Tnx

-- 
- Zack -

Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"

DH_COMPAT 2 or 3 ?

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

I've done the ocaml-findlib package with 'export DH_COMPAT=3' in the
debian/rules.
Some user report me the impossibility of build the same package from the
sources on a debian potato.
The compilation fail on dh_clean that right report an error.

If I turn DH_COMPAT to 2 all compile correctly even on a potato.

So, why (and when) I have to use DH_COMPAT=3 ?

Tnx

-- 
- Zack -

Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.students.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate Student of Computer Science at University of Bologna, Italy
SysAdm of verdicchio.students.cs.unibo.it (130.136.3.134)
"Information wants to be Open"


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