Re: [RFS] altermime: utility used to alter mime-encoded mailpacks (uploaded)
On Friday 30 December 2005 21:06, Julien Valroff wrote: However, the package was rejected as orig.tar.gz was not included in the upload. The package should be rebuild with dpkg-buildpackage -sa option. Do you need me to do that? No, no, that was my mistake. Building with old changelog entries (-v) and pbuilder made me forget to add the orig file (-sa). It should be fixed now. Cheers and happy new year Christoph -- ~ ~ .signature [Modified] 1 line --100%--1,48 All -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFS] altermime: utility used to alter mime-encoded mailpacks (uploaded)
Le dimanche 01 janvier 2006 à 13:01 +0100, Christoph Haas a écrit : On Friday 30 December 2005 21:06, Julien Valroff wrote: However, the package was rejected as orig.tar.gz was not included in the upload. The package should be rebuild with dpkg-buildpackage -sa option. Do you need me to do that? No, no, that was my mistake. Building with old changelog entries (-v) and pbuilder made me forget to add the orig file (-sa). It should be fixed now. It seems to be ok now. Thanks again for helping. Happy new year! Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for collaborative maintenance of packages
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, skaller wrote: These things take time. Indeed. However change must start with awareness. We're quite aware of our limitations, but we can't make miracles. There's a lot to do and this thread proves that some people are willing to make things change for people like you. Had you taken the time to read the proposal which started this thread, you'd have discovered that it's very close to what you're vaguely proposing. We don't need more critics, we need : - good ideas to improve our tools and processes - time people to code the new infrastructure (or the changes to the infrastructure) Surely, but first there must be an idea of what the problems are and what could be done. And in my opinion the DD's have far too much 'paper work' to do, and their talents are not well deployed. Becoming DD implies some paper work. But once someone is DD, there's no paper work any more ... but you keep speaking about this paper work problem. So tell me what this prolem is ... in the process -- the need to upload packages just to trigger the autobuilder into rebuilding .. even when the sources have not changed (tool change). I'm watching them do a whole lot of This problem has been adressed already, binary only NMU can be triggered by the release team. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
single binary, multiple binary,...
Hi, I want to learn building Debian package (yeah, it has been for a long now...) and need to get a zope2.9 package. Now, the latest available is just zope2.8-2.8.4. As well as it is not really an upgrade of the package but it brings a name change, I decided to create a new package. Well.. In fact, I will inspire 99% from the rules and other staff from the zope2.8 package, and may be the trick will be done by a simple s/2.8/2.9 in the debian directory files. I dont intend to re-invent the wheel. So: single binary? multiple binary? for that package? thank you. AS soon as I build a package without too much error, I will put it into a repo and the mentors and packages developpers will be abble to telle me what's wrong. I just want to do the first needed work, then ehancements wiil be brought by those who knows. Thank you! -- A powerfull GroupWare, CMS, CRM, ECM: CPS (Open Source GPL). Opengroupware, SPIP, Plone, PhpBB, JetSpeed... are good: CPS is better. http://www.cps-project.org for downloads documentation. Free hosting of CPS groupware: http://www.objectis.org. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: single binary, multiple binary,...
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:02:46PM +0100, Rakotomandimby Mihamina wrote: Hi, I want to learn building Debian package (yeah, it has been for a long now...) and need to get a zope2.9 package. Now, the latest available is just zope2.8-2.8.4. As well as it is not really an upgrade of the package but it brings a name change, I decided to create a new package. Well.. In fact, I will inspire 99% from the rules and other staff from the zope2.8 package, and may be the trick will be done by a simple s/2.8/2.9 in the debian directory files. I dont intend to re-invent the wheel. So: single binary? multiple binary? for that package? thank you. A single binary package is one with 2 stanzas in ./debian/control; the first stanza is always for the source package, and additional stanzas define the binary packages created by that source package. AS soon as I build a package without too much error, I will put it into a repo and the mentors and packages developpers will be abble to telle me what's wrong. I just want to do the first needed work, then ehancements wiil be brought by those who knows. The easiest thing might be to use the same .diff.gz, and hack on it until it 1) compiles, 2) creates useful binary packages, and 3) passes lintian tests. -- Clear skies, Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new pkg: libcrypt-simple-per
Hi all! Today is the first day of the year, so I manage to create my first debian package...and it's still libcrypt-simple-perl... This is what I've done: 1. copied tar.gz to libcrypt-simple-perl-0.06.tar.gz 2. uncompressed it and rename dir to libcrypt-simple-perl-0.06 3. cd libcrypt-simple-perl-0.06 4. dh-make-perl I've used it since it creates a debian/rules for perl modules 5. debuild lintian returns this: W: libcrypt-simple-perl source: native-package-with-dash-version And yes, I don't quite understand why, but it doesn't create .orig.tar.gz and diff.gz files! Not even dh_make create .orig.tar.gz but onlt a dir libcrypt-simple-perl-0.06.orig at the same level of libcrypt-simple-perl-0.06 . All files are available at the following lnks: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/debian/libcrypt-simple-perl_0.06-1_all.deb http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/debian/libcrypt-simple-perl_0.06-1.dsc http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/debian/libcrypt-simple-perl_0.06-1_i386.build http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/debian/libcrypt-simple-perl_0.06-1_i386.changes http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/debian/libcrypt-simple-perl_0.06-1.tar.gz I hope someone can help me complete packaging this module. Thanks Regards Happy New Year -- Sandro Tosi (aka Morpheus, matrixhasu) My (little) site: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Re: new pkg: libcrypt-simple-per
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 12:35:11AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: Hi all! Today is the first day of the year, so I manage to create my first debian package...and it's still libcrypt-simple-perl... This is what I've done: 1. copied tar.gz to libcrypt-simple-perl-0.06.tar.gz You either needed to specify the -f option to dh_make, as in dh_make -f ../libcryp...tar.gz or to manually rename the pristine upstream tarball to the proper .orig.tar.gz name, which this is not. 2. uncompressed it and rename dir to libcrypt-simple-perl-0.06 3. cd libcrypt-simple-perl-0.06 4. dh-make-perl I've used it since it creates a debian/rules for perl modules 5. debuild lintian returns this: W: libcrypt-simple-perl source: native-package-with-dash-version debuild calls dpkg-buildpackage, which couldn't find the .orig.tar.gz, because it wasn't called that, so it made it into a native package, with no .diff.gz, and a nonpristine orig tarball. And yes, I don't quite understand why, but it doesn't create .orig.tar.gz and diff.gz files! Not even dh_make create .orig.tar.gz but onlt a dir libcrypt-simple-perl-0.06.orig at the same level of libcrypt-simple-perl-0.06 . That directory is used to create the .orig.tar.gz, though I don't understand why dh_make doesn't make the .orig.tar.gz initially, but instead creates that directory and lets dpkg-buildpackage do it. Anyone know why? -- Clear skies, Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
