Re: vimoutliner -- plea for sponsoring
#include * Matej Cepl [Mon, Jul 28 2003, 03:11:29PM]: > Hi, > > I have created a package for vimoutliner. Is there anybody who would > like to sponsor me? > >Package: vimoutliner >Status: install ok installed >Priority: optional >Section: editors >Installed-Size: 204 >Maintainer: Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Version: 0.3.0-1 >Depends: vim (>= 6.0), perl >Description: a script for building an outline editor on top of Vim > Vimoutliner provides commands for building using the Vim text > editor as an outline editor. For more explanation on what > outlines are and what they are good for see the script's > webpage at > http://www.troubleshooters.com/projects/vimoutliner/index.htm No, it is not: VimOutliner is a program to facilitate quick and productive outline processing using the Vim editor (version 6 or better). It also facilitates the "hyperlinking" of different outlines using Vim's tagging facilities. And now, I know much more, really! :( The whole page seems to be looking for coders with thons of specifications, no self-explaining user doc or screenshots. MfG, Eduard. -- Fuchur: Finger weg von Inn, damit kannn man sich schneller als einem lieb ist in den Fuss schiessen. Fuchur: Vertraue mir. Hmm, shorty kling so als koenne er die Loecher in seinen Fuessen nicht mehr zaehlen... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sponsor for popfile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ok... Description fixed. I have some questions about the other two items. Ah... I updated lintian to testing and notice several errors. I'll fix them. I used to have one which I was not sure about. Lintian complains that symbolic links should be relative, but the link is from "/usr/share/doc/popfile/manual" to "/usr/lib/popfile/manual". Making it relative would make the link "more cryptic(?)". Should I still make it relative? Should I add the closes to the list of changes for the last version of the package, or can I append it to the "Initial Release" line? Will the bug tracking system parse the whole file or just the changes list for the latest version? > -Original Message- > From: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Sponsor for popfile > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 15:57 -0300, Lucas Wall wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'm looking for a sponsor. I have the following package ready for > > examination: > > > > POPFile is an email classification tool with a Naive Bayes > classifier, > > a POP3 proxy and a web interface. It runs on most > platforms and with > > most email clients. > > > > package: http://www.kadath.com.ar/popfile/ > > upstream: http://popfile.sourceforge.net > > > > Thanks! > > > > K. > > Hello Lucas, > > After a quick check, I've found the following problems with your > package: > > · The package is not lintian clean yet. > > · In debian/changelog, there is no 'closes #203349' to close ITP bug > #203349. > > · In debian/control, the short description shouldn't start with 'An' > and end with '.', see [1]. > > [1] > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging- practices..en.html#s-bpp-pkg-synopsis Regards, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar - -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQE/J3BFaPMPuwG2iykRAs2fAJ9UM810FobD/RoByNHSBWfa+1XdaACfSR68 hEq/TqN9FHLC1tIrAG4ESIQ= =fylk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tagging bugs "woody"?
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > Tagging them as "fixed,woody" sounds wrong to me, they'll be listed as > "closed in NMU" and will probably be rereported again. Oh, does tagging "fixed" automatically result in that? As far as I understood, a NMU is one possibility, but not the only one. TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sponsor for popfile
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:14 -0300, Lucas Wall wrote: > Ok... Description fixed. I have some questions about the other two > items. > > Ah... I updated lintian to testing and notice several errors. I'll > fix them. I used to have one which I was not sure about. Lintian > complains that symbolic links should be relative, but the link is > from "/usr/share/doc/popfile/manual" to "/usr/lib/popfile/manual". > Making it relative would make the link "more cryptic(?)". Should I > still make it relative? You shouldn't install documentation in /usr/lib in the first place. Read the Chapter 12 of Debian Policy at: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html You should have read the Debian Policy document thoroughly. > Should I add the closes to the list of changes for the last version > of the package, or can I append it to the "Initial Release" line? Put it in the changes list of the lastest version. > Will the bug tracking system parse the whole file or just the changes > list for the latest version? You shouldn't change the log of the previous versions anyway. A 'closes #nn' in the changes list of a previous version won't be considered. Regards, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sponsor for popfile
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 08:20:15PM +1000, An?bal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:14 -0300, Lucas Wall wrote: > > Will the bug tracking system parse the whole file or just the changes > > list for the latest version? > > You shouldn't change the log of the previous versions anyway. A 'closes > #nn' in the changes list of a previous version won't be considered. ... unless you use the -v option to dpkg-buildpackage, which is often useful anyway on an initial upload. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trying to make my first package...
Hello, As an exercise, I am trying to make my first Debian package using a Windowmaker dockapp called WMxmms. I think I almost succeeded to produce something that works, but I have three little questions. 1) I have a (boring) naming problem. The program is called WMxmms version 0.1.4, but I read that the convention is to lowercase the names of packages, so I chose to call it wmxmms-0.1.4. The problem is that the executable is called WMxmms, and there already is a program called wmxmms, which is part of the xmms package. The better way I found was to call the package wmxmms, and to let WMxmms as program name and menu entry, but there is a possible confusion with the "other" wmxmms program... 2) The package seems correct, lintian doesn't give any message anymore. But dpkg-buildpackage didn't generate an "orig.tar.gz" and a "diff.tar.gz" files, but only a "tar.gz". Is it because I didn't change anything in the source code ? 3) I know it is a very simple and straightforward job, but I wonder if it could be interesting that I send my package to somebody in order to diffuse it ? I put the files at the following address : http://www.nozav.org/debian/ Thanks in advance for any answer, and sorry for my very newbie questions and my poor english. Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying to make my first package...
* Julien Barnier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hello, > > As an exercise, I am trying to make my first Debian package using a > Windowmaker dockapp called WMxmms. I think I almost succeeded to produce > something that works, but I have three little questions. > > 1) I have a (boring) naming problem. The program is called WMxmms > version 0.1.4, but I read that the convention is to lowercase the names > of packages, so I chose to call it wmxmms-0.1.4. The problem is that the > executable is called WMxmms, and there already is a program called > wmxmms, which is part of the xmms package. The better way I found was to > call the package wmxmms, and to let WMxmms as program name and menu > entry, but there is a possible confusion with the "other" wmxmms > program... > Have you checked if the wmxmms in xmms package isn't the same as your WMxmms dockapp? From the manpage I see this: ,[ wmxmms manpage ] |WMXMMS is a dock applet for the Window Maker window manager. From |the applet you can start and control xmms. ` Goedson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sponsor for popfile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I read the Debian Policy and didn't installed documentation in "/usr/lib". What I did was move the html manual out of the main program install dir and place it in "/usr/share/doc", but the web UI links to the manual so I placed a symbolic link. ln -fs /usr/share/doc/popfile/manual $(DESTDIR)/usr/lib/popfile/manual Now lintian says the link should be relative. Should I make it relative? > -Original Message- > From: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:20 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Sponsor for popfile > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:14 -0300, Lucas Wall wrote: > > Ok... Description fixed. I have some questions about the other two > > items. > > > > Ah... I updated lintian to testing and notice several > errors. I'll fix > > them. I used to have one which I was not sure about. > Lintian complains > > that symbolic links should be relative, but the link is from > > "/usr/share/doc/popfile/manual" to > "/usr/lib/popfile/manual". Making > > it relative would make the link "more cryptic(?)". Should I > still make > > it relative? > > You shouldn't install documentation in /usr/lib in the first > place. Read the Chapter 12 of Debian Policy at: > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html You should have read the Debian Policy document thoroughly. > Should I add the closes to the list of changes for the last version of > the package, or can I append it to the "Initial Release" line? Put it in the changes list of the lastest version. > Will the bug tracking system parse the whole file or just the changes > list for the latest version? You shouldn't change the log of the previous versions anyway. A 'closes #nn' in the changes list of a previous version won't be considered. Regards, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar - -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQE/J/DnaPMPuwG2iykRAvANAJ91YbnoBgrlbqXAZ6CV90hPm7+YbQCdGOHl 7QvYwlQvhPZ+JLwXijhah3s= =ELOl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying to make my first package...
> Have you checked if the wmxmms in xmms package isn't the same as > your WMxmms dockapp? Yes, and it is a different dockapp, much more complete in my opinion. In fact this WMxmms dockapp is closer to the wmusic dockapp. Otherwise, the problem would have been solved... Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying to make my first package...
* Julien Barnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030730 17:40]: > 2) The package seems correct, lintian doesn't give any message anymore. > But dpkg-buildpackage didn't generate an "orig.tar.gz" and a > "diff.tar.gz" files, but only a "tar.gz". Is it because I didn't change > anything in the source code ? dpkg-buildpackage cannot create a orig.tar.gz, as something original has already to be there. (Try putting the upstream source code renamed there). In order to dpkg-buildpackage even trying, you need to have a version number ending with a debian-specific number. (The thing after -) Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sponsor for popfile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package is now lintian clean, the description has been fixed and the changelog entry added. K. > -Original Message- > From: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Sponsor for popfile > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 15:57 -0300, Lucas Wall wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'm looking for a sponsor. I have the following package ready for > > examination: > > > > POPFile is an email classification tool with a Naive Bayes > classifier, > > a POP3 proxy and a web interface. It runs on most > platforms and with > > most email clients. > > > > package: http://www.kadath.com.ar/popfile/ > > upstream: http://popfile.sourceforge.net > > > > Thanks! > > > > K. > > Hello Lucas, > > After a quick check, I've found the following problems with your > package: > > · The package is not lintian clean yet. > > · In debian/changelog, there is no 'closes #203349' to close ITP bug > #203349. > > · In debian/control, the short description shouldn't start with 'An' > and end with '.', see [1]. > > [1] > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging- practices..en.html#s-bpp-pkg-synopsis Regards, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar - -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQE/KAuHaPMPuwG2iykRApWZAKCevW/EwPQiyTEXX+A5LyG4p7+LmACfU8IP /XIqHM/XVjIPEpM9trtQ7ik= =fKuC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tagging bugs "woody"?
On 30.07.03 10:02 Frank Küster wrote: Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: Tagging them as "fixed,woody" sounds wrong to me, they'll be listed as "closed in NMU" and will probably be rereported again. Oh, does tagging "fixed" automatically result in that? Yes, bugs listed on http://bugs.debian.org/somepackages as "fixed by NMU" are exactly the ones with a "fixed" tag. As far as I understood, a NMU is one possibility, but not the only one. I've used it myself for NMUisms, i.e. if I found a bug in a negleted package that was fixed but not closed, I've tagged it as "fixed" instead of closing it, imvvvho the former is sometimes acceptable, while closing usually should be done by submitter or maintainer. cu andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying to make my first package...
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 17:42 +0200, Julien Barnier wrote: > 2) The package seems correct, lintian doesn't give any message anymore. > But dpkg-buildpackage didn't generate an "orig.tar.gz" and a > "diff.tar.gz" files, but only a "tar.gz". Is it because I didn't change > anything in the source code ? Rename wmxmms_0.1.4-1.tar.gz to wmxmms_0.1.4-1.orig.tar.gz and dpkg-buildpackage will generate the diff.tar.gz file. Aníbal -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sponsor for popfile
Lucas Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > >I read the Debian Policy and didn't installed documentation in "/usr/lib". > What I did was move the html manual out of the main program install dir and place it > in "/usr/share/doc", but the web UI links to the manual so I placed a symbolic link. > >ln -fs /usr/share/doc/popfile/manual $(DESTDIR)/usr/lib/popfile/manual you can use dh_links and set: echo usr/share/doc/popfile/manual usr/lib/popfile \ > debian/popfile.links -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying to make my first package...
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 06:13:26AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 17:42 +0200, Julien Barnier wrote: > > 2) The package seems correct, lintian doesn't give any message anymore. > > But dpkg-buildpackage didn't generate an "orig.tar.gz" and a > > "diff.tar.gz" files, but only a "tar.gz". Is it because I didn't change > > anything in the source code ? > > Rename wmxmms_0.1.4-1.tar.gz to wmxmms_0.1.4-1.orig.tar.gz and > dpkg-buildpackage will generate the diff.tar.gz file. Disregard that. Your file wmxmms_0.1.4-1.tar.gz is not the original tar archive from the upstream author. You need to rename the upstream original tar archive to: wmxmms_0.1.4-1.orig.tar.gz Regards, Aníbal -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
building unstable packages with stable
I'm using sourceforge's compile farm and I'd like to know how to use it to compile packages for unstable. They use woody. I also have an account on HP's testdrive systems. Is there any reasonably easy way to do this? I know that the buildd's can take care of it, but I'd like to be able to do this myself. Even if they have gcc 3.3 how would I specify that it should be used instead of gcc 2.x (default 2.95.x on Woody)? I see that gcc-3.0 is available for woody, but 3.3 isn't... I think I'm stuck as far as the c++ abi transition goes for using sf's compile farm. Drew Daniels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building unstable packages with stable
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:05:24PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > I'm using sourceforge's compile farm and I'd like to know how to use it to > compile packages for unstable. They use woody. I also have an account on > HP's testdrive systems. Bad idea. Your packages' first point of entry is unstable, so build and test on an unstable box. And since you'll probably want to install foreign dependencies etc., you should probably get a box at home to do so so you don't have to wait for some admin to reply and install your deps. Building your packages on sourceforge will make them link against old libraries that are not in unstable. -Josh -- Using words to describe magic is like using a screwdriver to cut roast beef. -- Tom Robbins pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: building unstable packages with stable
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:05:24PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > I'm using sourceforge's compile farm and I'd like to know how to use it to > compile packages for unstable. They use woody. I also have an account on > HP's testdrive systems. > Is there any reasonably easy way to do this? I know that the buildd's can > take care of it, but I'd like to be able to do this myself. No; and, moreover, you should not be relying on machines not under your (or Debian's) control in order to build binary packages that will be uploaded to the Debian archive. Sourceforge has certainly been compromised in the past, and remains a high profile target; I wouldn't want to see it used as a conduit for getting compromised software into Debian. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
locale files
I maintain a package that provides a shared library, libosp3c102. The files
/usr/share/locale/{ja,fr,de,sv}/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo are part of the package.
However, they are also part of the package that provided the older version of
the same shared library, libosp2. When I try to install libosp3c102 on a
system that has libosp2 installed, I get an error: "trying to overwrite
`/usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo', which is also in package libosp2".
I found that libgtk2.0-common and libgtk1.2-common versionize the locale
files, e.g., gtk20.mo and gtk+.mo, respectively. I'm not certain that it was
done to solve the same problem, but it looks like that would work in my case.
Is there any reason not to do that?
--
Neil Roeth
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: locale files
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:23:14PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
> I maintain a package that provides a shared library, libosp3c102. The files
> /usr/share/locale/{ja,fr,de,sv}/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo are part of the package.
> However, they are also part of the package that provided the older version of
> the same shared library, libosp2. When I try to install libosp3c102 on a
> system that has libosp2 installed, I get an error: "trying to overwrite
> `/usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo', which is also in package libosp2".
> I found that libgtk2.0-common and libgtk1.2-common versionize the locale
> files, e.g., gtk20.mo and gtk+.mo, respectively. I'm not certain that it was
> done to solve the same problem, but it looks like that would work in my case.
> Is there any reason not to do that?
Look up 'Replaces' in the policy or developer's guide or whatnot.
--
Paul "TBBle" Hampson
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: locale files
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:23:14PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
> I maintain a package that provides a shared library, libosp3c102. The files
> /usr/share/locale/{ja,fr,de,sv}/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo are part of the package.
> However, they are also part of the package that provided the older version of
> the same shared library, libosp2. When I try to install libosp3c102 on a
> system that has libosp2 installed, I get an error: "trying to overwrite
> `/usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo', which is also in package libosp2".
> I found that libgtk2.0-common and libgtk1.2-common versionize the locale
> files, e.g., gtk20.mo and gtk+.mo, respectively. I'm not certain that it was
> done to solve the same problem, but it looks like that would work in my case.
> Is there any reason not to do that?
You should either version the files, or move them into another package.
Versioning would seem to make more sense in the case of gettext data. In
general, a shared library package must not contain any files which would
conflict with a later version of the same library. Different versions of
the same shared library must not conflict with each other, so that the
library can be upgraded smoothly.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: building unstable packages with stable
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:39:59PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:05:24PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > > I'm using sourceforge's compile farm and I'd like to know how to use it to > > compile packages for unstable. They use woody. I also have an account on > > HP's testdrive systems. > > > Is there any reasonably easy way to do this? I know that the buildd's can > > take care of it, but I'd like to be able to do this myself. > > No; and, moreover, you should not be relying on machines not under your > (or Debian's) control in order to build binary packages that will be > uploaded to the Debian archive. Sourceforge has certainly been > compromised in the past, and remains a high profile target; I wouldn't > want to see it used as a conduit for getting compromised software into > Debian. > A way to compile unstable on a stable systems is like this: Run debootstrap on an unstable system, make a tarball of it and take it to the stable system unpack the tarball there and chroot into it. If there is interrest for it, I can set such tarballs for PowerPC and i386 online. Geert Stappers pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sponsor for popfile
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 15:57 -0300, Lucas Wall wrote: > Hi! > > I'm looking for a sponsor. I have the following package ready for > examination: > > POPFile is an email classification tool with a Naive Bayes classifier, > a POP3 proxy and a web interface. It runs on most platforms and with > most email clients. > > package: http://www.kadath.com.ar/popfile/ > upstream: http://popfile.sourceforge.net > > Thanks! > > K. Hello Lucas, After a quick check, I've found the following problems with your package: · The package is not lintian clean yet. · In debian/changelog, there is no 'closes #203349' to close ITP bug #203349. · In debian/control, the short description shouldn't start with 'An' and end with '.', see [1]. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices..en.html#s-bpp-pkg-synopsis Regards, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | pgpvAngySTvCu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: vimoutliner -- plea for sponsoring
#include * Matej Cepl [Mon, Jul 28 2003, 03:11:29PM]: > Hi, > > I have created a package for vimoutliner. Is there anybody who would > like to sponsor me? > >Package: vimoutliner >Status: install ok installed >Priority: optional >Section: editors >Installed-Size: 204 >Maintainer: Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Version: 0.3.0-1 >Depends: vim (>= 6.0), perl >Description: a script for building an outline editor on top of Vim > Vimoutliner provides commands for building using the Vim text > editor as an outline editor. For more explanation on what > outlines are and what they are good for see the script's > webpage at > http://www.troubleshooters.com/projects/vimoutliner/index.htm No, it is not: VimOutliner is a program to facilitate quick and productive outline processing using the Vim editor (version 6 or better). It also facilitates the "hyperlinking" of different outlines using Vim's tagging facilities. And now, I know much more, really! :( The whole page seems to be looking for coders with thons of specifications, no self-explaining user doc or screenshots. MfG, Eduard. -- Fuchur: Finger weg von Inn, damit kannn man sich schneller als einem lieb ist in den Fuss schiessen. Fuchur: Vertraue mir. Hmm, shorty kling so als koenne er die Loecher in seinen Fuessen nicht mehr zaehlen...
RE: Sponsor for popfile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ok... Description fixed. I have some questions about the other two items. Ah... I updated lintian to testing and notice several errors. I'll fix them. I used to have one which I was not sure about. Lintian complains that symbolic links should be relative, but the link is from "/usr/share/doc/popfile/manual" to "/usr/lib/popfile/manual". Making it relative would make the link "more cryptic(?)". Should I still make it relative? Should I add the closes to the list of changes for the last version of the package, or can I append it to the "Initial Release" line? Will the bug tracking system parse the whole file or just the changes list for the latest version? > -Original Message- > From: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:31 AM > To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Sponsor for popfile > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 15:57 -0300, Lucas Wall wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'm looking for a sponsor. I have the following package ready for > > examination: > > > > POPFile is an email classification tool with a Naive Bayes > classifier, > > a POP3 proxy and a web interface. It runs on most > platforms and with > > most email clients. > > > > package: http://www.kadath.com.ar/popfile/ > > upstream: http://popfile.sourceforge.net > > > > Thanks! > > > > K. > > Hello Lucas, > > After a quick check, I've found the following problems with your > package: > > · The package is not lintian clean yet. > > · In debian/changelog, there is no 'closes #203349' to close ITP bug > #203349. > > · In debian/control, the short description shouldn't start with 'An' > and end with '.', see [1]. > > [1] > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging- practices..en.html#s-bpp-pkg-synopsis Regards, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar - -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQE/J3BFaPMPuwG2iykRAs2fAJ9UM810FobD/RoByNHSBWfa+1XdaACfSR68 hEq/TqN9FHLC1tIrAG4ESIQ= =fylk -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: tagging bugs "woody"?
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > Tagging them as "fixed,woody" sounds wrong to me, they'll be listed as > "closed in NMU" and will probably be rereported again. Oh, does tagging "fixed" automatically result in that? As far as I understood, a NMU is one possibility, but not the only one. TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Re: Sponsor for popfile
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:14 -0300, Lucas Wall wrote: > Ok... Description fixed. I have some questions about the other two > items. > > Ah... I updated lintian to testing and notice several errors. I'll > fix them. I used to have one which I was not sure about. Lintian > complains that symbolic links should be relative, but the link is > from "/usr/share/doc/popfile/manual" to "/usr/lib/popfile/manual". > Making it relative would make the link "more cryptic(?)". Should I > still make it relative? You shouldn't install documentation in /usr/lib in the first place. Read the Chapter 12 of Debian Policy at: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html You should have read the Debian Policy document thoroughly. > Should I add the closes to the list of changes for the last version > of the package, or can I append it to the "Initial Release" line? Put it in the changes list of the lastest version. > Will the bug tracking system parse the whole file or just the changes > list for the latest version? You shouldn't change the log of the previous versions anyway. A 'closes #nn' in the changes list of a previous version won't be considered. Regards, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | pgpQeWV7YG7bR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sponsor for popfile
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 08:20:15PM +1000, An?bal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:14 -0300, Lucas Wall wrote: > > Will the bug tracking system parse the whole file or just the changes > > list for the latest version? > > You shouldn't change the log of the previous versions anyway. A 'closes > #nn' in the changes list of a previous version won't be considered. ... unless you use the -v option to dpkg-buildpackage, which is often useful anyway on an initial upload. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe
Trying to make my first package...
Hello, As an exercise, I am trying to make my first Debian package using a Windowmaker dockapp called WMxmms. I think I almost succeeded to produce something that works, but I have three little questions. 1) I have a (boring) naming problem. The program is called WMxmms version 0.1.4, but I read that the convention is to lowercase the names of packages, so I chose to call it wmxmms-0.1.4. The problem is that the executable is called WMxmms, and there already is a program called wmxmms, which is part of the xmms package. The better way I found was to call the package wmxmms, and to let WMxmms as program name and menu entry, but there is a possible confusion with the "other" wmxmms program... 2) The package seems correct, lintian doesn't give any message anymore. But dpkg-buildpackage didn't generate an "orig.tar.gz" and a "diff.tar.gz" files, but only a "tar.gz". Is it because I didn't change anything in the source code ? 3) I know it is a very simple and straightforward job, but I wonder if it could be interesting that I send my package to somebody in order to diffuse it ? I put the files at the following address : http://www.nozav.org/debian/ Thanks in advance for any answer, and sorry for my very newbie questions and my poor english. Julien
Re: Trying to make my first package...
* Julien Barnier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hello, > > As an exercise, I am trying to make my first Debian package using a > Windowmaker dockapp called WMxmms. I think I almost succeeded to produce > something that works, but I have three little questions. > > 1) I have a (boring) naming problem. The program is called WMxmms > version 0.1.4, but I read that the convention is to lowercase the names > of packages, so I chose to call it wmxmms-0.1.4. The problem is that the > executable is called WMxmms, and there already is a program called > wmxmms, which is part of the xmms package. The better way I found was to > call the package wmxmms, and to let WMxmms as program name and menu > entry, but there is a possible confusion with the "other" wmxmms > program... > Have you checked if the wmxmms in xmms package isn't the same as your WMxmms dockapp? From the manpage I see this: ,[ wmxmms manpage ] |WMXMMS is a dock applet for the Window Maker window manager. From |the applet you can start and control xmms. ` Goedson
RE: Sponsor for popfile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I read the Debian Policy and didn't installed documentation in "/usr/lib". What I did was move the html manual out of the main program install dir and place it in "/usr/share/doc", but the web UI links to the manual so I placed a symbolic link. ln -fs /usr/share/doc/popfile/manual $(DESTDIR)/usr/lib/popfile/manual Now lintian says the link should be relative. Should I make it relative? > -Original Message- > From: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:20 AM > To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Sponsor for popfile > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:14 -0300, Lucas Wall wrote: > > Ok... Description fixed. I have some questions about the other two > > items. > > > > Ah... I updated lintian to testing and notice several > errors. I'll fix > > them. I used to have one which I was not sure about. > Lintian complains > > that symbolic links should be relative, but the link is from > > "/usr/share/doc/popfile/manual" to > "/usr/lib/popfile/manual". Making > > it relative would make the link "more cryptic(?)". Should I > still make > > it relative? > > You shouldn't install documentation in /usr/lib in the first > place. Read the Chapter 12 of Debian Policy at: > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html You should have read the Debian Policy document thoroughly. > Should I add the closes to the list of changes for the last version of > the package, or can I append it to the "Initial Release" line? Put it in the changes list of the lastest version. > Will the bug tracking system parse the whole file or just the changes > list for the latest version? You shouldn't change the log of the previous versions anyway. A 'closes #nn' in the changes list of a previous version won't be considered. Regards, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar - -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQE/J/DnaPMPuwG2iykRAvANAJ91YbnoBgrlbqXAZ6CV90hPm7+YbQCdGOHl 7QvYwlQvhPZ+JLwXijhah3s= =ELOl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Trying to make my first package...
> Have you checked if the wmxmms in xmms package isn't the same as > your WMxmms dockapp? Yes, and it is a different dockapp, much more complete in my opinion. In fact this WMxmms dockapp is closer to the wmusic dockapp. Otherwise, the problem would have been solved... Julien
Re: Trying to make my first package...
* Julien Barnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030730 17:40]: > 2) The package seems correct, lintian doesn't give any message anymore. > But dpkg-buildpackage didn't generate an "orig.tar.gz" and a > "diff.tar.gz" files, but only a "tar.gz". Is it because I didn't change > anything in the source code ? dpkg-buildpackage cannot create a orig.tar.gz, as something original has already to be there. (Try putting the upstream source code renamed there). In order to dpkg-buildpackage even trying, you need to have a version number ending with a debian-specific number. (The thing after -) Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
RE: Sponsor for popfile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package is now lintian clean, the description has been fixed and the changelog entry added. K. > -Original Message- > From: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:31 AM > To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Sponsor for popfile > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 15:57 -0300, Lucas Wall wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'm looking for a sponsor. I have the following package ready for > > examination: > > > > POPFile is an email classification tool with a Naive Bayes > classifier, > > a POP3 proxy and a web interface. It runs on most > platforms and with > > most email clients. > > > > package: http://www.kadath.com.ar/popfile/ > > upstream: http://popfile.sourceforge.net > > > > Thanks! > > > > K. > > Hello Lucas, > > After a quick check, I've found the following problems with your > package: > > · The package is not lintian clean yet. > > · In debian/changelog, there is no 'closes #203349' to close ITP bug > #203349. > > · In debian/control, the short description shouldn't start with 'An' > and end with '.', see [1]. > > [1] > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging- practices..en.html#s-bpp-pkg-synopsis Regards, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar - -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQE/KAuHaPMPuwG2iykRApWZAKCevW/EwPQiyTEXX+A5LyG4p7+LmACfU8IP /XIqHM/XVjIPEpM9trtQ7ik= =fKuC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: tagging bugs "woody"?
On 30.07.03 10:02 Frank Küster wrote: Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: Tagging them as "fixed,woody" sounds wrong to me, they'll be listed as "closed in NMU" and will probably be rereported again. Oh, does tagging "fixed" automatically result in that? Yes, bugs listed on http://bugs.debian.org/somepackages as "fixed by NMU" are exactly the ones with a "fixed" tag. As far as I understood, a NMU is one possibility, but not the only one. I've used it myself for NMUisms, i.e. if I found a bug in a negleted package that was fixed but not closed, I've tagged it as "fixed" instead of closing it, imvvvho the former is sometimes acceptable, while closing usually should be done by submitter or maintainer. cu andreas
Re: Trying to make my first package...
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 17:42 +0200, Julien Barnier wrote: > 2) The package seems correct, lintian doesn't give any message anymore. > But dpkg-buildpackage didn't generate an "orig.tar.gz" and a > "diff.tar.gz" files, but only a "tar.gz". Is it because I didn't change > anything in the source code ? Rename wmxmms_0.1.4-1.tar.gz to wmxmms_0.1.4-1.orig.tar.gz and dpkg-buildpackage will generate the diff.tar.gz file. Aníbal -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | pgpnexIssarKd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sponsor for popfile
Lucas Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > >I read the Debian Policy and didn't installed documentation in > "/usr/lib". What I did was move the html manual out of the main program > install dir and place it in "/usr/share/doc", but the web UI links to the > manual so I placed a symbolic link. > >ln -fs /usr/share/doc/popfile/manual > $(DESTDIR)/usr/lib/popfile/manual you can use dh_links and set: echo usr/share/doc/popfile/manual usr/lib/popfile \ > debian/popfile.links
Re: Trying to make my first package...
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 06:13:26AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 17:42 +0200, Julien Barnier wrote: > > 2) The package seems correct, lintian doesn't give any message anymore. > > But dpkg-buildpackage didn't generate an "orig.tar.gz" and a > > "diff.tar.gz" files, but only a "tar.gz". Is it because I didn't change > > anything in the source code ? > > Rename wmxmms_0.1.4-1.tar.gz to wmxmms_0.1.4-1.orig.tar.gz and > dpkg-buildpackage will generate the diff.tar.gz file. Disregard that. Your file wmxmms_0.1.4-1.tar.gz is not the original tar archive from the upstream author. You need to rename the upstream original tar archive to: wmxmms_0.1.4-1.orig.tar.gz Regards, Aníbal -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | Building 28C : :' : Free Operating System | Monash University VIC 3800 `. `' http://debian.org/| Australia `- | pgpB7KRbME7NV.pgp Description: PGP signature
building unstable packages with stable
I'm using sourceforge's compile farm and I'd like to know how to use it to compile packages for unstable. They use woody. I also have an account on HP's testdrive systems. Is there any reasonably easy way to do this? I know that the buildd's can take care of it, but I'd like to be able to do this myself. Even if they have gcc 3.3 how would I specify that it should be used instead of gcc 2.x (default 2.95.x on Woody)? I see that gcc-3.0 is available for woody, but 3.3 isn't... I think I'm stuck as far as the c++ abi transition goes for using sf's compile farm. Drew Daniels
Re: building unstable packages with stable
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:05:24PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > I'm using sourceforge's compile farm and I'd like to know how to use it to > compile packages for unstable. They use woody. I also have an account on > HP's testdrive systems. Bad idea. Your packages' first point of entry is unstable, so build and test on an unstable box. And since you'll probably want to install foreign dependencies etc., you should probably get a box at home to do so so you don't have to wait for some admin to reply and install your deps. Building your packages on sourceforge will make them link against old libraries that are not in unstable. -Josh -- Using words to describe magic is like using a screwdriver to cut roast beef. -- Tom Robbins pgpgRLB04YzVB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: building unstable packages with stable
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:05:24PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > I'm using sourceforge's compile farm and I'd like to know how to use it to > compile packages for unstable. They use woody. I also have an account on > HP's testdrive systems. > Is there any reasonably easy way to do this? I know that the buildd's can > take care of it, but I'd like to be able to do this myself. No; and, moreover, you should not be relying on machines not under your (or Debian's) control in order to build binary packages that will be uploaded to the Debian archive. Sourceforge has certainly been compromised in the past, and remains a high profile target; I wouldn't want to see it used as a conduit for getting compromised software into Debian. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpJDp7H5JcQi.pgp Description: PGP signature
locale files
I maintain a package that provides a shared library, libosp3c102. The files
/usr/share/locale/{ja,fr,de,sv}/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo are part of the package.
However, they are also part of the package that provided the older version of
the same shared library, libosp2. When I try to install libosp3c102 on a
system that has libosp2 installed, I get an error: "trying to overwrite
`/usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo', which is also in package libosp2".
I found that libgtk2.0-common and libgtk1.2-common versionize the locale
files, e.g., gtk20.mo and gtk+.mo, respectively. I'm not certain that it was
done to solve the same problem, but it looks like that would work in my case.
Is there any reason not to do that?
--
Neil Roeth
Re: locale files
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:23:14PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
> I maintain a package that provides a shared library, libosp3c102. The files
> /usr/share/locale/{ja,fr,de,sv}/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo are part of the package.
> However, they are also part of the package that provided the older version of
> the same shared library, libosp2. When I try to install libosp3c102 on a
> system that has libosp2 installed, I get an error: "trying to overwrite
> `/usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo', which is also in package libosp2".
> I found that libgtk2.0-common and libgtk1.2-common versionize the locale
> files, e.g., gtk20.mo and gtk+.mo, respectively. I'm not certain that it was
> done to solve the same problem, but it looks like that would work in my case.
> Is there any reason not to do that?
Look up 'Replaces' in the policy or developer's guide or whatnot.
--
Paul "TBBle" Hampson
Re: locale files
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:23:14PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
> I maintain a package that provides a shared library, libosp3c102. The files
> /usr/share/locale/{ja,fr,de,sv}/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo are part of the package.
> However, they are also part of the package that provided the older version of
> the same shared library, libosp2. When I try to install libosp3c102 on a
> system that has libosp2 installed, I get an error: "trying to overwrite
> `/usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/sp.mo', which is also in package libosp2".
> I found that libgtk2.0-common and libgtk1.2-common versionize the locale
> files, e.g., gtk20.mo and gtk+.mo, respectively. I'm not certain that it was
> done to solve the same problem, but it looks like that would work in my case.
> Is there any reason not to do that?
You should either version the files, or move them into another package.
Versioning would seem to make more sense in the case of gettext data. In
general, a shared library package must not contain any files which would
conflict with a later version of the same library. Different versions of
the same shared library must not conflict with each other, so that the
library can be upgraded smoothly.
--
- mdz
