conffiles no longer needed except ...
Hi! I have no idea how to properly handle the following situation: My package logwatch previously had all their configuration files in /etc/logwatch/conf. They were marked as conffiles so dpkg was responsible for policy-compliant upgrading. However, since version 7.0 logwatch has a very cool(TM) way to specify the configuration. There is a directory default.conf, containing the proposed upstream configuration, there is an optional dist.conf dir containing the debian specific modifications (both in /usr/share/logwatch/), and there is /etc/logwatch/conf, containing optional site-specific modifications. (the ./conf is there because upstream allows local scripts to be put in ./scripts ..) Now the issue is, that all the old files in /etc/logwatch/conf are no longer needed, except if it was customized. If it was not customized, they should be removed, because they will interfere with the configuration by me and upstream, especially when some changes are needed. The question is: How should they be removed? - Just by putting a warning in NEWS.Debian, telling the local admin to remove them except if he modified it. (A NEWS.Debian file will be needed anyway, so users don't stumble over the new layout) - Trying to figure out in the maintainer scripts if the file has been modified, and if it hasn't been modified, delete it? - Provide the local user a script he can optionally run to remove unneeded files (of course with a hint in README.Debian and NEWS.Debian) - another way? The current list of files: http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?searchmode=filelistword=logwatchversion=unstablearch=all thanks for you replies Willi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Patching a config file
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 06:00:48PM +0100, Danai SAE-HAN wrote: Package freetype1-tools owns a configuration file, namely /etc/ttf2pk/ttfonts.map. It is a conffile, because it is contained in the package: That won't work right. On the next upgrade with a changed conffile pkg will claim the package was modified by the user while in fact it was modifed by the package. That is just wrong. If you need to modify the file then don't make it a conffile. Create it completly automatically, e.g. in /var/lib/package/, or make it a configuartion file and use ucf. You misunderstood. I said that it is possible that a Configuration file that is stored in the .deb could be a non-conffile. The previous poster had asserted that it must be. I had showed how it might not be the case. Basically The package could leave the file as a plain file, and in preinst gather any user changes, let the new version destroy the old version (AFAIK dpkg won't compain because it is NOT a conffile), and then restore user changes.) Just re-read my post thinking I was talking about a normal file rather than a confile. Debian Policy 10.7.3: | The other way to do it is via the maintainer scripts. In this case, | the configuration file must not be listed as a conffile and must not | be part of the package distribution. So our previous poster is completly right by saing it is a conffile since it is contained in the package. Anything else would be a policy violation. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: conffiles no longer needed except ...
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Willi Mann wrote: Hi! I have no idea how to properly handle the following situation: My package logwatch previously had all their configuration files in /etc/logwatch/conf. They were marked as conffiles so dpkg was responsible for policy-compliant upgrading. However, since version 7.0 logwatch has a very cool(TM) way to specify the configuration. There is a directory default.conf, containing the proposed upstream configuration, there is an optional dist.conf dir containing the debian specific modifications (both in /usr/share/logwatch/), and there is /etc/logwatch/conf, containing optional site-specific modifications. (the ./conf is there because upstream allows local scripts to be put in ./scripts ..) Now the issue is, that all the old files in /etc/logwatch/conf are no longer needed, except if it was customized. If it was not customized, they should be removed, because they will interfere with the configuration by me and upstream, especially when some changes are needed. The question is: How should they be removed? You should look at dpkg.org, where there are some useful conffile examples, and maybe also play with udev, which I think helps to handle this type of situation. -- Clear skies, Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How to create the most compatible package
Hi. I'm working on a very simple package which, only has compile time dependencies. I'm currently on debian unstable, with g++-4.0 as my main compiler (it's a C++ program). I've succesfully created a package and installed it on another debian system, however when I go to an Ubuntu system, it seems to needs the newer libraries (g++-4.0 libraries?) So my question is: How can I create the most compatible package without resorting to source? Greetings, Bram -- Key fingerprint = CFF9 A55D 6677 7EF2 035D 7695 639D 107C EDB3 D318
Re: Menu problems
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:02:39AM -0500, Daniel Milstein wrote: The menu system will only install entries in a Debian/ directory in xdg-aware desktop environments, where users are not likely to look, This is a concious decision on the part of the respective upstream authors and/or maintainers of the xdg-aware desktop environments, and IMHO a bug. I'm planning to see if this can be fixed for etch when I have finished a few other things first. and only if the menu-xdg package is installed. Personally, I think this should be Depends:-ed in for menu-carrying apps which don't supply a menu-method. You could have your package depend on the menu-xdg package, but I would recommend using desktop files in addition to menu files. But only for those reasons stated above? -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cdbs and i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar error
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005, Alexei Chetroi wrote: make[2]: i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: Command not found I'd say this is somewhere in your environment, and shouldn't, try: env | grep i686 HTH, -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do we want? BRAINS!When do we want it? BRAINS! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: mednafen -- multi-system emulator
Package: wnpp Owner: Ryan Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Severity: wishlist * Package name: medanfen Version : 0.3.7 Upstream Author : Mednafen Team * URL : http://mednafen.com/ * License : GPL Description : multi-system emulator Mednafen is a command-line driven emulator for many different systems. It has full support for OpenGL and SDL graphics, network play, sound output via various methods (Esound, Jack, etc.), remappable input configuration, joystick and keyboard support, save states, game rewinding, and screenshots. . The systems supported by Mednafen are: * Atari Lynx * GameBoy * GameBoy Color * GameBoy Advance * NES * PC Engine (TurboGrafx 16) * SuperGrafx . Hardware emulated by Mednafen includes: * NES gamepad, Zapper, PowerPad * Four-Score, Famicom multiplayer adapter * Arkanoid, HyperShot, Space Shadow, Mahjong controllers * Oeka Kids tablet, Quiz King buzzers, Family Trainer, Barcode World reader * Game Genie PBuilder/Lintian-clean packages available at: deb http://rschultz.ath.cx/debian unstable/i386/ deb-src http://rschultz.ath.cx/debian unstable/source/ -- Ryan Schultz vi users are mammals, and they flip out and kill people *all the time.* pgpDK3jF039Ss.pgp Description: PGP signature
RFS: pykdeextensions -- Python packages to support KDE applications (scripts)
* Package name: pykdeextensions Version : 0.4.0 Upstream Author : Simon Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.simonzone.com/software/pykdeextensions * License : GPL Description : Python packages to support KDE applications (scripts) PyKDE Extensions is a collection of software and Python packages to support the creation and installation of KDE applications. the same source provides also libpythonize0 package. You can find my packages on mentors.debian.net There's some lintian and linda reports : 1) lintian : W: libpythonize0: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath ./usr/lib/libpythonize.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib N: N: The binary or shared library defines the `RPATH'. Usually this is a N: bad thing. Most likely you will find a Makefile with a line like: N: gcc test.o -o test -Wl,--rpath N: or N: gcc test.o -o test -R/usr/local/lib N: Please contact debian-devel@lists.debian.org if you have questions N: about this. N: 2) linda : W: libpythonize0-dev; The .la file /usr/lib/libpythonize.la contains a libdir which is different to its path. The .la file shown above contains a line libdir='somedir'. This should be set to the directory that the .la file exists in, not where the .la file was built. W: libpythonize0; Binary /usr/lib/libpythonize.so.0.0.0 compiled with an RPATH of /usr/lib. This binary or shared library defines the `RPATH', which is usually a bad thing. Most likely you will find a Makefile with a line like: gcc test.o -o test -Wl,--rpath kde-guidance needs libpytonize. cheers, Fathi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to create the most compatible package
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:56:30PM +0100, Bram Neijt wrote: I'm working on a very simple package which, only has compile time dependencies. I'm currently on debian unstable, with g++-4.0 as my main compiler (it's a C++ program). I've succesfully created a package and installed it on another debian system, however when I go to an Ubuntu system, it seems to needs the newer libraries (g++-4.0 libraries?) So my question is: How can I create the most compatible package without resorting to source? The most compatible package is a source package. Debian and Ubuntu both have autobuilders to handle creating binary packages with the appropriate toolchain and dependencies. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bangladesh Key-Signing completed - Debian Maintiner base can now be extended there.
Matthew Grant wrote: Hi teRHe! One of my dreams for the last 4 years has been to help the Bangladesh IT industry expand and be enhanced by IT workers having the opportunity to join us, and also to enhance Bangla language support in Linux. Thanks for your interest and great effort! I GPG signed and identified 4 people by their passports and other official ID, on the chance that they may want to become maintainers. Two have decided to go ahead, and I mention them here. It would be good if some Mentors got in touch with them. They are: Salahuddin Pasha [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jamil Ahmed [EMAIL PROTECTED] I believe that Salahuddin is an active participant in the Bangla localisation effort for OpenOffice.org (or is it Jamil - please correct me?) It is me. :) I believe they are both already quite active on some Debian mailing lists. Thank you for helping them. I am looking forward to the Debian Community embracing them and encouragin them with open arms. It is good to see another corner of the map soon to have a red dot on it! Some introduction of me: I am Jamil Ahmed from Dhaka, Bangladesh. Professionally I am working in a local software development company. In my spare time I do maintain some activities for Open Source, mainly localization. Currently I am maintaining/working Bengali/Bangla L10n for Debian, Fedora, Mandriva, OpenSUSE, Gnome, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org . I will try my best to work for Debian. I hope I will get necessary assistance from you when required. :) Regards, `Jamil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package versioning troubles
Hello, sorry for a newbie question, but: I have patched a little some package (iptraf, in fact) - and created a package with adjusted version number. I added a changelog entry, changing the patchlevel number (the number after dash), so the new .deb's version is 2.7.0-9 (the original version was 2.7.0-8). When I add it to my repository (rebuild Packages.gz), and do apt-get update ; apt-get install iptraf, the original iptraf package version 2.7.0-8 is not upgraded to 2.7.0-9. I really don't know why, and I suspect I am making some very stupid error. For a short play, the repository is at deb http://belgarat.klfree.net/klfree-debian/ testing unofficial Thanks for any help, -Svata -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package versioning troubles
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:06:53PM +0100, Svata Dedic wrote: Hello, sorry for a newbie question, but: I have patched a little some package (iptraf, in fact) - and created a package with adjusted version number. I added a changelog entry, changing the patchlevel number (the number after dash), so the new .deb's version is 2.7.0-9 (the original version was 2.7.0-8). When I add it to my repository (rebuild Packages.gz), and do apt-get update ; apt-get install iptraf, the original iptraf package version 2.7.0-8 is not upgraded to 2.7.0-9. I really don't know why, and I suspect I am making some very stupid error. For a short play, the repository is at deb http://belgarat.klfree.net/klfree-debian/ testing unofficial Thanks for any help, -Svata Maybe these can help? http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto/howtos/debrepository http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto/howtos/debcustomize -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto pgpwsABuAWrln.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Package versioning troubles
Hello, Thanks for the pointers, I have already seen them in the past - and now I hopefully made a proper repository. But to be more specific about the situation: - apt-get update proceeds OK, - aptitude shows the customized package as a version of iptraf (this is OK) - I can do apt-get install iptraf=2.7.0-8.0.whatever_custom_version and it works OK, but when official iptraf (2.7.0-8) is installed, the iptraf package is not recognized as upgradeable to 2.7.0-8.0.whavever_custom_version (which I would like to achieve). So plain apt-get install iptraf will not do anything Thanks! -Svata Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:06:53PM +0100, Svata Dedic wrote: When I add it to my repository (rebuild Packages.gz), and do apt-get update ; apt-get install iptraf, the original iptraf package version 2.7.0-8 is not upgraded to 2.7.0-9. I really don't know why, and I suspect I am making some very stupid error. For a short play, the repository is at deb http://belgarat.klfree.net/klfree-debian/ testing unofficial Maybe these can help? http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto/howtos/debrepository http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto/howtos/debcustomize -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package versioning troubles
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:11:17PM +0100, Svata Dedic wrote: Hello, Thanks for the pointers, I have already seen them in the past - and now I hopefully made a proper repository. But to be more specific about the situation: - apt-get update proceeds OK, - aptitude shows the customized package as a version of iptraf (this is OK) - I can do apt-get install iptraf=2.7.0-8.0.whatever_custom_version and it works OK, but when official iptraf (2.7.0-8) is installed, the iptraf package is not recognized as upgradeable to 2.7.0-8.0.whavever_custom_version (which I would like to achieve). So plain apt-get install iptraf will not do anything What is the output of `apt-cache policy iptraf` ? -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto pgpdY1YivMuS1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Package versioning troubles
On Nov 23 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: What is the output of `apt-cache policy iptraf` ? The thing is that if the original poster is running a sufficiently new apt, then it will give preference to trusted (i.e., signed) repositories and ignore those that aren't. Hope this helps, Rogério Brito. -- Rogério Brito : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFC: vrms -- virtual Richard M. Stallman
Dear developers, I am interested in getting feedback on the packaging of vrms. The vrms package contains the program vrms which lists the non-free packages installed in your system. It was poorly maintained[1] for some time and I would like to get the ball rolling on this package, as you can notice from the changelogs[2] and from my actions taken triaging and merging bugs on the BTS etc. Before adding new features and addressing new problems, I would like to ask you opinions, coments, criticisms etc regarding the packaging of vrms. It currently has an open RC bug[3] that was fixed as soon as I received the report. Unfortunately, as I am not a Debian Developer, I can't upload it yet (nor can I upload other packages that I'd like to adopt) and it seems that the other maintainers (that can upload it) are quite busy right now. Anyway, while they can't upload the package to sid and following the mantra that given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow, I would like to ask you for some comments and even style. I'm mostly concerned with best current practices. The project is registered in alioth[4] and I can provide source Debian packages if that is a preferred format for inspection. Thank you very much for any help, Rogério Brito. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=302504;msg=5 [2] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/v/vrms/vrms_1.10/changelog [3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=338243 [4] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/vrms -- Rogério Brito : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
