Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:07:44AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote: > So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok > or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that > > # if `dpkg --compare-versions 20040104:1.1-1 lt 1.2-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi > # > > thanks again Epoch should only be used for (hopefully) one-off mistakes, and it really should start at 1 Eg procps has an epoch of 1: for one of its many forks or recombines. What i have seen is things like 0.7.1+0.7.2rc2 for something that is the second release candidate for 0.7.2, the 0.7.1 in front means the real 0.7.2 will be newer. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.enc.com.au/ MIEE Debian developer csmall at : enc.com.au ieee.org debian.org
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:07:44AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote: > So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok > or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that > > # if `dpkg --compare-versions 20040104:1.1-1 lt 1.2-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi > # > > thanks again Epoch should only be used for (hopefully) one-off mistakes, and it really should start at 1 Eg procps has an epoch of 1: for one of its many forks or recombines. What i have seen is things like 0.7.1+0.7.2rc2 for something that is the second release candidate for 0.7.2, the 0.7.1 in front means the real 0.7.2 will be newer. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.enc.com.au/ MIEE Debian developer csmall at : enc.com.au ieee.org debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Sunday 04 January 2004 19:41, Mattia Dongili wrote: > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is > out... If you use an epoch to solve this problem, you will be stuck with it forever. I urge you to avoid this if you can. (You can.) > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or > has anybody a better suggestion? What about simply 1.1.0-1? Either one is certainly better than an epoch. This way, when 1.2 is released, you can go back to simply using 1.2-1. For your next set of RC packages, you might use a scheme such as 1.1.90+1.2rc1 or something that will evaulate as less than 1.2, but I'm sure you've already figured that out. =) Cheers, nate -- Nathaniel W. Turner http://www.houseofnate.net/ Tel: +1 508 579 1948 (mobile)
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:07:44AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote: > So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok > or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that No, 1:1.1-1 is greater than any version number without an epoch. 2:* is greater than any 1:*, and so on. -- Joshua Kwan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Sunday 04 January 2004 19:41, Mattia Dongili wrote: > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is > out... If you use an epoch to solve this problem, you will be stuck with it forever. I urge you to avoid this if you can. (You can.) > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or > has anybody a better suggestion? What about simply 1.1.0-1? Either one is certainly better than an epoch. This way, when 1.2 is released, you can go back to simply using 1.2-1. For your next set of RC packages, you might use a scheme such as 1.1.90+1.2rc1 or something that will evaulate as less than 1.2, but I'm sure you've already figured that out. =) Cheers, nate -- Nathaniel W. Turner http://www.houseofnate.net/ Tel: +1 508 579 1948 (mobile) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:05:25AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
>> > out...
>> [...]
>> > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
>> > has anybody a better suggestion?
>> Read the fu^Wfine policy and use an epoch.
> 5.6.11 Version
> [...]
> Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind
> mistakes in version numbering(1) , and to cope with situations where the
> version numbering scheme changes. It is not intended to cope with
> version numbers containing strings of letters which the package
> management system cannot interpret (such as ALPHA or pre-)(2)
> [...]
>
> DP is a bit misleading here (IMO or is it me not being a native english
> speaker), is it the case of (1) or (2)?
> I thought it was (2)
No. A package with a "1.1-rc1" as version was a mistake. The next time
you do something like that, you use a version number like the inn2
cvs-snapshots do [1] (or any other, not-b0rken way to solve this)
Marc
Footnotes:
[1] 2.4.0+20031130-1
--
$_=')(hBCdzVnS})3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$(rellac(=_$({pam(esrever })e$.)4/3*
)e$(htgnel+23(rhc,"u"(kcapnu ,""nioj ;|_- |/+9-0z-aZ-A|rt~=e$;_$=e${pam tnirp{y
V2ajFGabus} yV2ajFGa&{gwmclBHIbus}gwmclBHI&{yVGa09mbbus}yVGa09mb&{hBCdzVnSbus';
s/\n//g;s/bus/\nbus/g;eval scalar reverse #
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:07:44AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote: > So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok > or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that No, 1:1.1-1 is greater than any version number without an epoch. 2:* is greater than any 1:*, and so on. -- Joshua Kwan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 12:09:12PM +1100, Craig Small wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:41:48AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote: > > actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :) [...] > > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or > > has anybody a better suggestion? > > You have to decide if you are going to do this sort of thing all the > time or not. If it this is a once-off, I'd use an epoch. If packaging > rc versions is going to be a regular thing, then you need to decide how > to put your versions so the rc one appear older than the releases. I'd like to continue to package also -rc versions, but since I'm also upstream of this package I could ask myself to use a more decent version numbering :) So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that # if `dpkg --compare-versions 20040104:1.1-1 lt 1.2-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi # thanks again -- mattia :wq!
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:05:25AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is > > out... > [...] > > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or > > has anybody a better suggestion? > > Read the fu^Wfine policy and use an epoch. 5.6.11 Version [...] Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind mistakes in version numbering(1) , and to cope with situations where the version numbering scheme changes. It is not intended to cope with version numbers containing strings of letters which the package management system cannot interpret (such as ALPHA or pre-)(2) [...] DP is a bit misleading here (IMO or is it me not being a native english speaker), is it the case of (1) or (2)? I thought it was (2) or do you mean I should use something like 1.1.20040104-1 (which other packages use) thanks -- mattia :wq!
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:05:25AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
>> > out...
>> [...]
>> > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
>> > has anybody a better suggestion?
>> Read the fu^Wfine policy and use an epoch.
> 5.6.11 Version
> [...]
> Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind
> mistakes in version numbering(1) , and to cope with situations where the
> version numbering scheme changes. It is not intended to cope with
> version numbers containing strings of letters which the package
> management system cannot interpret (such as ALPHA or pre-)(2)
> [...]
>
> DP is a bit misleading here (IMO or is it me not being a native english
> speaker), is it the case of (1) or (2)?
> I thought it was (2)
No. A package with a "1.1-rc1" as version was a mistake. The next time
you do something like that, you use a version number like the inn2
cvs-snapshots do [1] (or any other, not-b0rken way to solve this)
Marc
Footnotes:
[1] 2.4.0+20031130-1
--
$_=')(hBCdzVnS})3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$(rellac(=_$({pam(esrever })e$.)4/3*
)e$(htgnel+23(rhc,"u"(kcapnu ,""nioj ;|_- |/+9-0z-aZ-A|rt~=e$;_$=e${pam tnirp{y
V2ajFGabus} yV2ajFGa&{gwmclBHIbus}gwmclBHI&{yVGa09mbbus}yVGa09mb&{hBCdzVnSbus';
s/\n//g;s/bus/\nbus/g;eval scalar reverse #
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:41:48AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote: > actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :) > > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is > out... > > but > > # if `dpkg --compare-versions 1.1-rc-1 lt 1.1-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi > # > > ouch! I'm looking around for similar problems (I _can't_ be the first > :)) but still haven't found anything. > > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or > has anybody a better suggestion? You have to decide if you are going to do this sort of thing all the time or not. If it this is a once-off, I'd use an epoch. If packaging rc versions is going to be a regular thing, then you need to decide how to put your versions so the rc one appear older than the releases. Most solutions to this sort of problem have their own problems. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.enc.com.au/ MIEE Debian developer csmall at : enc.com.au ieee.org debian.org
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
> out...
[...]
> the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
> has anybody a better suggestion?
Read the fu^Wfine policy and use an epoch.
Marc
--
$_=')(hBCdzVnS})3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$(rellac(=_$({pam(esrever })e$.)4/3*
)e$(htgnel+23(rhc,"u"(kcapnu ,""nioj ;|_- |/+9-0z-aZ-A|rt~=e$;_$=e${pam tnirp{y
V2ajFGabus} yV2ajFGa&{gwmclBHIbus}gwmclBHI&{yVGa09mbbus}yVGa09mb&{hBCdzVnSbus';
s/\n//g;s/bus/\nbus/g;eval scalar reverse #
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 12:09:12PM +1100, Craig Small wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:41:48AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote: > > actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :) [...] > > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or > > has anybody a better suggestion? > > You have to decide if you are going to do this sort of thing all the > time or not. If it this is a once-off, I'd use an epoch. If packaging > rc versions is going to be a regular thing, then you need to decide how > to put your versions so the rc one appear older than the releases. I'd like to continue to package also -rc versions, but since I'm also upstream of this package I could ask myself to use a more decent version numbering :) So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that # if `dpkg --compare-versions 20040104:1.1-1 lt 1.2-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi # thanks again -- mattia :wq! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:05:25AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is > > out... > [...] > > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or > > has anybody a better suggestion? > > Read the fu^Wfine policy and use an epoch. 5.6.11 Version [...] Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind mistakes in version numbering(1) , and to cope with situations where the version numbering scheme changes. It is not intended to cope with version numbers containing strings of letters which the package management system cannot interpret (such as ALPHA or pre-)(2) [...] DP is a bit misleading here (IMO or is it me not being a native english speaker), is it the case of (1) or (2)? I thought it was (2) or do you mean I should use something like 1.1.20040104-1 (which other packages use) thanks -- mattia :wq! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cpufreqd braindamaged versions
Hi all, actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :) I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is out... but # if `dpkg --compare-versions 1.1-rc-1 lt 1.1-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi # ouch! I'm looking around for similar problems (I _can't_ be the first :)) but still haven't found anything. the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or has anybody a better suggestion? thanks -- mattia :wq!
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:41:48AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote: > actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :) > > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is > out... > > but > > # if `dpkg --compare-versions 1.1-rc-1 lt 1.1-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi > # > > ouch! I'm looking around for similar problems (I _can't_ be the first > :)) but still haven't found anything. > > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or > has anybody a better suggestion? You have to decide if you are going to do this sort of thing all the time or not. If it this is a once-off, I'd use an epoch. If packaging rc versions is going to be a regular thing, then you need to decide how to put your versions so the rc one appear older than the releases. Most solutions to this sort of problem have their own problems. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.enc.com.au/ MIEE Debian developer csmall at : enc.com.au ieee.org debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
> out...
[...]
> the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
> has anybody a better suggestion?
Read the fu^Wfine policy and use an epoch.
Marc
--
$_=')(hBCdzVnS})3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$(rellac(=_$({pam(esrever })e$.)4/3*
)e$(htgnel+23(rhc,"u"(kcapnu ,""nioj ;|_- |/+9-0z-aZ-A|rt~=e$;_$=e${pam tnirp{y
V2ajFGabus} yV2ajFGa&{gwmclBHIbus}gwmclBHI&{yVGa09mbbus}yVGa09mb&{hBCdzVnSbus';
s/\n//g;s/bus/\nbus/g;eval scalar reverse #
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cpufreqd braindamaged versions
Hi all, actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :) I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is out... but # if `dpkg --compare-versions 1.1-rc-1 lt 1.1-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi # ouch! I'm looking around for similar problems (I _can't_ be the first :)) but still haven't found anything. the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or has anybody a better suggestion? thanks -- mattia :wq! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generating an unstable package on a stable system
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:39:47PM +0100, Marcos Mayorga Aguirre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any trick to continue without installing in my system a library > version from unstable? > In other words: Could I generate an unstable debian package which depends on > unstable packages already available using a stable system? Yes, what you seek is 'pbuilder' (preferred), but 'debootstrap' can give you an unstable chroot environment as well. Cheers, GCS
generating an unstable package on a stable system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello & happy new year I am trying to debianize a library (imlib3d) and I am using a stable debian distro. My problem is the following: This library depends on libgsl0 >=1.3.0, but the provided one by my apt-get is 1.1.1 so I can't finish the ./configure script whithout error. Is there any trick to continue without installing in my system a library version from unstable? In other words: Could I generate an unstable debian package which depends on unstable packages already available using a stable system? thank you -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/+JY0hZ38oaFZSeIRAlWuAKCFTkmx0yuxTh8GSz8OtIuObxlEEACggOzm 29x1V4f3CEOLuEFg7ojpre8= =YlaW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: RFS: gURLChecker
El dom, 04-01-2004 a las 10:15, GCS escribió: > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:25:56PM +0100, Daniel Pecos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Hi everybody and happy new year! > Thanks, I wish you the same! > > > Name: gURLChecker > > License: GPL > > Short Description: URL checker for GNOME2 > > Long Description: gURLChecker is a GNOME2 tool that can check links > > on a single web page or on a whole web site in order to > > determine > > validity of each page. > What's the main differences between the linkchecker debian package and > your proposed package? As I understand is, you have a GUI, and do > statistics at the end. > Well, as you said, these seem to be the main differences between them, but linkchecker has more options than gURLChecker, so it's a little more difficult to use (also it's more powerfull). Some screenshots are available on its web page: http://www.nongnu.org/gurlchecker > Cheers, > GCS -- Daniel Pecos Martinez http://netpecos.org GPG ID: D4480E60 Linux User #175518
Re: generating an unstable package on a stable system
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:39:47PM +0100, Marcos Mayorga Aguirre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any trick to continue without installing in my system a library > version from unstable? > In other words: Could I generate an unstable debian package which depends on > unstable packages already available using a stable system? Yes, what you seek is 'pbuilder' (preferred), but 'debootstrap' can give you an unstable chroot environment as well. Cheers, GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
generating an unstable package on a stable system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello & happy new year I am trying to debianize a library (imlib3d) and I am using a stable debian distro. My problem is the following: This library depends on libgsl0 >=1.3.0, but the provided one by my apt-get is 1.1.1 so I can't finish the ./configure script whithout error. Is there any trick to continue without installing in my system a library version from unstable? In other words: Could I generate an unstable debian package which depends on unstable packages already available using a stable system? thank you -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/+JY0hZ38oaFZSeIRAlWuAKCFTkmx0yuxTh8GSz8OtIuObxlEEACggOzm 29x1V4f3CEOLuEFg7ojpre8= =YlaW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: gURLChecker
El dom, 04-01-2004 a las 10:15, GCS escribió: > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:25:56PM +0100, Daniel Pecos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi everybody and happy new year! > Thanks, I wish you the same! > > > Name: gURLChecker > > License: GPL > > Short Description: URL checker for GNOME2 > > Long Description: gURLChecker is a GNOME2 tool that can check links > > on a single web page or on a whole web site in order to determine > > validity of each page. > What's the main differences between the linkchecker debian package and > your proposed package? As I understand is, you have a GUI, and do > statistics at the end. > Well, as you said, these seem to be the main differences between them, but linkchecker has more options than gURLChecker, so it's a little more difficult to use (also it's more powerfull). Some screenshots are available on its web page: http://www.nongnu.org/gurlchecker > Cheers, > GCS -- Daniel Pecos Martinez http://netpecos.org GPG ID: D4480E60 Linux User #175518 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: wmweather+
On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 17:29, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Martin Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.03.1723 +0100]: > > I want to adopt wmweather+ and made a new package containing the new > > upstream version 2.5 (we have 2.4 in unstable). This new version fixes > > two BTS-bugs, so I am looking for a sponsor to upload this package. You > > can find it at http://stigge.org/martin/debian/wmweather+/ and it's also > > available at mentors.debian.net using > Do you have a sponsor yet? Nope. -- Martin Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: wmweather+
also sprach Martin Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.03.1723 +0100]: > I want to adopt wmweather+ and made a new package containing the new > upstream version 2.5 (we have 2.4 in unstable). This new version fixes > two BTS-bugs, so I am looking for a sponsor to upload this package. You > can find it at http://stigge.org/martin/debian/wmweather+/ and it's also > available at mentors.debian.net using Do you have a sponsor yet? -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! pgp8G4R5jVt4e.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: First multi-binary - could someone please check?
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:37:20PM +0100, Dennis Stampfer wrote: > I need to split up timeoutd into two packages, because timeoutd-x11 > needs xlibs and timeoutd doesn't. (maybe users want to use timeoutd > on a machine not running X) Policy 11.8.1: Programs that can 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. If such a package is of higher priority than the X packages on which it depends, it is required that either the X-specific components be split into a separate package, or that an alternative version of the package, which includes X support, be provided, or that the package's priority be lowered. Depending on xlibs adds only a few MB to the size of the installed system, and does NOT require running X; and there are many other packages that will depend on xlibs that users will want installed on non-X-using systems, so the per-package net impact is much less . I don't see any reason for splitting this into a separate package. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: wmweather+
On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 17:29, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Martin Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.03.1723 +0100]: > > I want to adopt wmweather+ and made a new package containing the new > > upstream version 2.5 (we have 2.4 in unstable). This new version fixes > > two BTS-bugs, so I am looking for a sponsor to upload this package. You > > can find it at http://stigge.org/martin/debian/wmweather+/ and it's also > > available at mentors.debian.net using > Do you have a sponsor yet? Nope. -- Martin Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First multi-binary - could someone please check?
Hi! I need to split up timeoutd into two packages, because timeoutd-x11 needs xlibs and timeoutd doesn't. (maybe users want to use timeoutd on a machine not running X) I am not very experienced with multi-binary packages. This is my first multi-binary and my first package which was single-bin before. Could someone please have a look at the ready timeoutd? http://people.debian.org/~seppy/packages/ There are the diff.gz, changes, debs, orig.tar.gz and a directory after building the package, as well as a tree.txt listing the whole directory-tree. I did not recognize errors when installing, updating, purging, changing from timeoutd to -x11, etc. lintian does not complain. Thank you! Dennis
Re: RFS: wmweather+
also sprach Martin Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.03.1723 +0100]: > I want to adopt wmweather+ and made a new package containing the new > upstream version 2.5 (we have 2.4 in unstable). This new version fixes > two BTS-bugs, so I am looking for a sponsor to upload this package. You > can find it at http://stigge.org/martin/debian/wmweather+/ and it's also > available at mentors.debian.net using Do you have a sponsor yet? -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: First multi-binary - could someone please check?
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:37:20PM +0100, Dennis Stampfer wrote: > I need to split up timeoutd into two packages, because timeoutd-x11 > needs xlibs and timeoutd doesn't. (maybe users want to use timeoutd > on a machine not running X) Policy 11.8.1: Programs that can 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. If such a package is of higher priority than the X packages on which it depends, it is required that either the X-specific components be split into a separate package, or that an alternative version of the package, which includes X support, be provided, or that the package's priority be lowered. Depending on xlibs adds only a few MB to the size of the installed system, and does NOT require running X; and there are many other packages that will depend on xlibs that users will want installed on non-X-using systems, so the per-package net impact is much less . I don't see any reason for splitting this into a separate package. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
First multi-binary - could someone please check?
Hi! I need to split up timeoutd into two packages, because timeoutd-x11 needs xlibs and timeoutd doesn't. (maybe users want to use timeoutd on a machine not running X) I am not very experienced with multi-binary packages. This is my first multi-binary and my first package which was single-bin before. Could someone please have a look at the ready timeoutd? http://people.debian.org/~seppy/packages/ There are the diff.gz, changes, debs, orig.tar.gz and a directory after building the package, as well as a tree.txt listing the whole directory-tree. I did not recognize errors when installing, updating, purging, changing from timeoutd to -x11, etc. lintian does not complain. Thank you! Dennis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: gURLChecker
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:25:56PM +0100, Daniel Pecos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi everybody and happy new year! Thanks, I wish you the same! > Name: gURLChecker > License: GPL > Short Description: URL checker for GNOME2 > Long Description: gURLChecker is a GNOME2 tool that can check links > on a single web page or on a whole web site in order to > determine > validity of each page. What's the main differences between the linkchecker debian package and your proposed package? As I understand is, you have a GUI, and do statistics at the end. Cheers, GCS
Re: RFS: gURLChecker
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:25:56PM +0100, Daniel Pecos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi everybody and happy new year! Thanks, I wish you the same! > Name: gURLChecker > License: GPL > Short Description: URL checker for GNOME2 > Long Description: gURLChecker is a GNOME2 tool that can check links > on a single web page or on a whole web site in order to determine > validity of each page. What's the main differences between the linkchecker debian package and your proposed package? As I understand is, you have a GUI, and do statistics at the end. Cheers, GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
