Re: RFS: xexec (updated package) [uploaded]
On Friday 22 September 2006 21:12, holoturoide wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.0.3-24 of my package xexec. I just uploaded the package. It builds these binary packages: trueprint - pretty printing of source code No idea where you got that from. But it doesn't build trueprint at all. :) 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: Tunapie
Hi, James... On Sunday 24 September 2006 11:39, James Stone wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package tunapie. Comments on the package: debian/copyright... - should contain the years of copyright like Copyright (C) 2002-2006 John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED] - should contain more than just the path to the GPL. See other Debian packages for examples. Otherwise the package looks good to me. Kindly 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: png2html (updated package)
On Sunday 24 September 2006 02:33, Jack Grahams wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1-5 of my package png2html (This package was previously orphaned). Regarding debian/patches/01_makefilefix.dpatch: Wouldn't it be easier if you installed the files into the appropriate locations using dh_install in debian/rules later? Patching the Makefile looks a bit unusual to me. Regarding debian/control: Description: transforms a PNG image to a web page Png2html takes a PNG image and transforms it pixer per pixel to a web s/pixer by pixel/pixel by pixel/ ? Regarding the man page: It's not quite clear to me on first sight why png2html needs both textfile.txt and output.html on the command line. I understand it after trying it out. But perhaps that can be made a tad bit clearer. Kindly 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: Tunapie
Hi, James Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] (24/09/2006): On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 10:02:39 +0100, James Stone wrote: On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 01:08:31 +0100, James Stone wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package tunapie. * Package name: tunapie Version : 1.0-2 Upstream Author : James Stone * URL : http://tunapie.sourceforge.net * License : GPL Section : sound It builds these binary packages: tunapie- Lists audio and video streams from shoutcast and icecast Just noticed that the previous version was not debian native.. just fixed this on version 1.0-3: D'oh I meant it was Debain native and now it is not! Anyway, have now also fixed all the lintian warnings.. There are still a few warnings in 1.0-4: W: tunapie source: uses-dh-python-with-no-pycompat W: tunapie source: not-using-po-debconf W: tunapie source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.2 (current is 3.7.2) E: tunapie source: missing-dh_python-build-dependency python | python-dev | python-all-dev W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/Tunapie.py W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/tuneradult.py W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/tuner.py W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/tunersafe.py W: tunapie: no-debconf-config W: tunapie: postinst-uses-db-input Cheers, -- Thomas Huriaux signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: Tunapie
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:59:54 +0200, Christoph Haas wrote: Hi, James... On Sunday 24 September 2006 11:39, James Stone wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package tunapie. Comments on the package: debian/copyright... - should contain the years of copyright like Copyright (C) 2002-2006 John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED] - should contain more than just the path to the GPL. See other Debian packages for examples. Otherwise the package looks good to me. Kindly Christoph Thanks for checking it out. I have made the above addition to the copyright file (tunapie 1.0-5). - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tunapie - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tunapie/tunapie_1.0-5.dsc Best wishes, James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Tunapie
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:14:47 +0200, Thomas Huriaux wrote: There are still a few warnings in 1.0-4: W: tunapie source: uses-dh-python-with-no-pycompat W: tunapie source: not-using-po-debconf W: tunapie source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.2 (current is 3.7.2) E: tunapie source: missing-dh_python-build-dependency python | python-dev | python-all-dev None of these come up on lintian (1.23.24) on my system. I was not sure about python deps because it depends on python-wxgtk2.6 And I was assuming this would do the right thing in terms of selecting an appropriate python version because of it's dependence on python. The last thing I wanted to do was specify a version of python that won't work with wx. W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/Tunapie.py W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/tuneradult.py W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/tuner.py W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/tunersafe.py W: tunapie: In my opinion these are stupid warnings.. The python scripts are not supposed to be executable.. they are run by the main program. Still, does this need to be fixed for Debian? If so, how? Is there a way to chmod them preinstall? no-debconf-config W: tunapie: postinst-uses-db-input I don't know how to fix these, and google isn't being much help. Any hints? Thanks, James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Tunapie
Op ma, 25-09-2006 te 13:07 +0100, schreef James Stone: On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:14:47 +0200, Thomas Huriaux wrote: There are still a few warnings in 1.0-4: W: tunapie source: uses-dh-python-with-no-pycompat W: tunapie source: not-using-po-debconf W: tunapie source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.2 (current is 3.7.2) E: tunapie source: missing-dh_python-build-dependency python | python-dev | python-all-dev None of these come up on lintian (1.23.24) on my system. Strange, I see them here. I was not sure about python deps because it depends on python-wxgtk2.6 And I was assuming this would do the right thing in terms of selecting an appropriate python version because of it's dependence on python. The last thing I wanted to do was specify a version of python that won't work with wx. W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/Tunapie.py W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/tuneradult.py W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/tuner.py W: tunapie: script-not-executable ./usr/share/tunapie/tunersafe.py W: tunapie: I don't know anything about the new python-policy, but usaually lintian is right: E: tunapie source: missing-dh_python-build-dependency python | python-dev | python-all-dev N: N: The package runs dh_python in debian/rules but doesn't build-depend on N: python or python-dev. dh_python requires /usr/bin/python to run, so N: packages using dh_python must build-depend on python (or python-dev or N: python-all-dev, which in turn depend on python), even if they don't N: otherwise need Python to build. N: N: Refer to the dh_python(1) manual page for details. In my opinion these are stupid warnings.. The python scripts are not supposed to be executable.. they are run by the main program. Still, does this need to be fixed for Debian? If so, how? Is there a way to chmod them preinstall? If the are not supposed to be executable, you should remove the she-bang line (#!/usr/bin/env python) from the files. If you want them to be executable you can do a chmod in your debian/rules file. Greetings Arjan signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: RFS: Tunapie
James Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] (25/09/2006): On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:14:47 +0200, Thomas Huriaux wrote: There are still a few warnings in 1.0-4: W: tunapie source: uses-dh-python-with-no-pycompat W: tunapie source: not-using-po-debconf W: tunapie source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.2 (current is 3.7.2) E: tunapie source: missing-dh_python-build-dependency python | python-dev | python-all-dev None of these come up on lintian (1.23.24) on my system. I was not sure about python deps because it depends on Did you also check the source package with lintian, or only the binary one ? no-debconf-config W: tunapie: postinst-uses-db-input I don't know how to fix these, and google isn't being much help. Any hints? I think the debconf-devel(7) manual gives very valuable examples. I also had a closer look at your debconf template, and you are making an assumption about the interface: By selecting no Some of the debconf frontends do not display a yes/no question but a checkbox. You may get around this problem by using a neutral sentence, such as If you do not choose this option. Cheers, -- Thomas Huriaux signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[uploaded] blacs-mpi (updated package)
Dear Muammar Am Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 05:41:03PM -0400 hat Muammar Wadih El Khatib Rodriguez getippert: I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Done. Regards -- Philipp | work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +41 1 802 20 00 Frauenfelder | home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +41 1 862 73 14 [PGP]| http://www.frauenfelder-kuerner.ch/ Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux. See http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reassigning Bugs
Hello Is there a way to leave the bug visible for my package, but reassign it to apt-file? Reassign it to packagesearch,apt-file ? Is this an undocumented feature? From the documentation of the BTS: reassign bugnumber package [ version ] Records that bug #bugnumber is a bug in package. This can be used to set the package if the user forgot the pseudo-header, or to change an earlier assignment. No notifications are sent to anyone (other than the usual information in the processing transcript). If you supply a version, the bug tracking system will note that the bug affects that version of the newly-assigned package. Regards Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reassigning Bugs
Hello Options I have thought about, but found not to be optimal: * File a bug report against apt-file, and block the bug against packagesearch by the new one - close the bug against packagesaerch as soon as the bug in apt-file is closed. This option does not reflect reality: I could not specify the version of packagesearch this bug is closed in. Besides it requires me to notice when the bug in apt-file is closed. * File a bug report against apt-file, (force)-merge the bug in packagesearch with that one. Again this is not a truthful reflection of reality, but might be a way to go. Any help is appreciated! You are probably looking for the 'clone' [1]. clone 12345 -1 reassign -1 apt-file retitle -1 apt-file: known to break packagesearch ... thanks However, the bugs live seperated from each other after cloning. So this seems to be more convenient way of doing option 1 (without the blocking thing), right? Regards Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: inotail -- inotify enhanced tail (updated package)
Hi, On 2006-09-24 at 23:58:36 +0200, James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On (24/09/06 18:43), Tobias Klauser wrote: On 2006-09-24 at 17:19:13 +0200, James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * You have missed the copyright info for inotify.h in debian/copyright. There is also no license information for this file, can you get it and add it? This file was taken from the Linux Kernel source tree and slightly altered (Dropped everything in #ifdef __KERNEL__ as not needed and useful in userspace). So this is licensed under the GPL. Would it suffice to add a notice about this to debian/copyright (plus the copyright information for the same file)? Or might it be better to depend on linux-kernel-headers and take the file from there (/usr/include/linux/inotify.h)? It is fine to lift this file and keep it in your package, but if you do then it needs appropriate license information. This must then be documented in debian/copyright. I'll add the following notice to debian/copyright: The files inotify.h and inotify-syscalls.h were taken from the source tree of the linux kernel and slightly altered. Both are licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2. inotify.h is Copyright (C) 2005 John McCutchan Is that sufficent? To make sure I'll also add a notice to the headers in the next upstream version. Cheers, Tobias -- .''`. Tobias Klauser - Debian enthusiast : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'` GPG-Key: 0x3A445520 `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: aria2 [sponsored again]
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 04:56:24PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
* remove useless ${misc:Depends} in debian/control.
It's not useless. See man 7 debhelper and search for Automatic
generation of miscellaneous dependencies.. I would myself remove
${misc:Depends} only if debhelper indeed did some wrong guess.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Tunapie
Thanks for all your help Arjan, Thomas and Christoph. I have now found out I needed to run lintian with the -cio argument, which helped a lot! I now have a properly lintian clean package: (Version 1.0.1 - I had to modify upstream to remove the executable tags!) - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tunapie - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tunapie/tunapie_1.0.1-1.dsc Best wishes, James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Tunapie
I also had a closer look at your debconf template, and you are making an assumption about the interface: By selecting no Some of the debconf frontends do not display a yes/no question but a checkbox. You may get around this problem by using a neutral sentence, such as If you do not choose this option. Thanks for this. I did not know that the interfaces could be different. I have made the change to 1.0.1-2 (uploaded to mentors.debian.net) James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS png2html (updated package) - new upload (2)
Christoph Haas wrote: Regarding debian/patches/01_makefilefix.dpatch: Wouldn't it be easier if you installed the files into the appropriate locations using dh_install in debian/rules later? Patching the Makefile looks a bit unusual to me. That is a much better method, thanks. s/pixer by pixel/pixel by pixel/ ? This annoying typo was pointed out by someone else too! You must have just missed the upload with its correction. On the same person's suggestion I also removed obvious comments from debian/rules, and closed the NMU bugs. Regarding the man page: It's not quite clear to me on first sight why png2html needs both textfile.txt and output.html on the command line. I understand it after trying it out. But perhaps that can be made a tad bit clearer. I see your point. I've added some clarification, do let me know if it's better. Thank you for your help. I've updated the uploaded copy now. Once again the package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/png2html - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/png2html/png2html_1.1-5.dsc Regards, Jack. ONE-CLICK WEBMAIL ACCESS - Easily monitor access your email accounts! Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: aria2 [sponsored again]
Kari Pahula wrote: It's not useless. it is, for this package. however, one can argue to let it in for not need to add it when it becomes required in a later upstream version, but i don't like that. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Tunapie
James Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] (25/09/2006): Thanks for all your help Arjan, Thomas and Christoph. I have now found out I needed to run lintian with the -cio argument, which helped a lot! I now have a properly lintian clean package: (Version 1.0.1 - I had to modify upstream to remove the executable tags!) - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tunapie - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tunapie/tunapie_1.0.1-1.dsc Last things from me: * In your debian/templates file, you marked the Default: field as translatable while it should not be (really easy to fix: just remove the underscore in front of Default). * The debconf-updatepo call should be before the dh_clean call in your clean target. Otherwise, if you modify the template file, it will create ll.po~ backup files that won't be removed from your source package. Cheers, -- Thomas Huriaux signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: malaga
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, James Westby wrote: * This package is one of the four Debian binary packages that contain Malaga version 4.3 ^^^ Then it goes on to describe how the upstream sources for 4.3 were downloaded in 1999. It's probably time to update this file. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html for the current preferred form. * Have you considered moving to a debhelper debian/rules? * Does the package really need to doo auto* in the debian/rules? * Consider adding a debian/watch file. Hi! These and the problems mentioned in the other e-mail should be corrected in 7.8-1 (yes, a new upstream release as well): malaga (7.8-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Package for Debian / adopt (Closes: #369161) * Repackage (new debian/rules etc.) using debhelper * Add debian/watch * Update debian/copyright * Add placeholder man-pages URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/malaga/ Of course, the debian-subdirectory is quite completely redone now, so there might be new things worth fixing now. -- http://www.iki.fi/tjyrinki/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: suomi-malaga
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, James Westby wrote: On (21/09/06 18:12), Timo Jyrinki wrote: * Package name: suomi-malaga Hi, Hello, and about suomi-malaga next. * Have you filed an ITP? If so you should close it in the changelog. * Why does the source package go in section misc if it's only binary package goes in to text? * By convention the homepage is indented by two spaces. See http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-upstream-info * The debian/copyright is slightly lacking. Please see the link in the malaga review. * You can lose the configure target from debian/rules. * Your debian/watch file doesn't work. It is pretty clear why, please fix it or remove it (preferably the former). suomi-malaga (0.7.2-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Notice ITP in changelog (Closes: #388801) * Change source package from misc to text * Intend homepage in debian/control by two spaces * Configure removed from debian/rules * Fixed debian/watch * Update copyright and why is the source package named differently to the bianry package? This is discouraged for single binary packages, but if you intend to build more binary packages from the source one day then it is ok. In the case of suomi-malaga, it's a customized version of the original suomi-malaga for voikko's purposes. It can be also used to generate output for other purposes (make sukija instead of make voikko), but currently the Finnish Voikko module is what is being used here. (but yes, oo2-voikko will be renamed) URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/suomi-malaga -Timo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libvoikko
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, James Westby wrote:
* Package name: libvoikko
Changes in this package to address problems found by James:
libvoikko (1.1-2) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Complete ITP (Closes: #388293)
* Indent homepage by two spaces in debian/control
* Switch to ${binary:Version} in debian/control
* Clean debian/rules, remove dh_shlibdeps extra parameters
* Fix hyphen-used-as-minus-sign in the man page
* Update debian/copyright
* Add dependency to autotools-dev (config.sub/guess)
URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libvoikko
-Timo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: tmispell-voikko
Hello, On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, James Westby wrote: * Package name: tmispell-voikko I made a new release based on James's comments, and the changes are as follows: tmispell-voikko (0.6-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Complete ITP (Closes: #388802) * Indent homepage by two spaces in debian/control * Uncomment config.sub/guess in debian/rules, add autotools-dev dependency * Remove commented dh_-calls from debian/rules * Move -z defs to LDFLAGS in debian/rules * Remove cruft from debian/watch * Add dependencies to libvoikko-dev, libmalaga-dev * Update debian/copyright URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tmispell-voikko * There is a lintian warning W: tmispell-voikko: binary-without-manpage ispell but I'm not sure how this should be handled. I didn't find out that either, so it's there still. Ideas, anyone? -Timo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Request
Hi everybody, I dont know if its the right place for that kind of request. If no, Im really sorry to pollute this mailing list. Im just join this mailing list and Im looking for someone that need help for his project. If then, dont hesitate and mail me. Sorry for my poor English. Julien FONTAINE. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Tunapie
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:12:15 +0200, Thomas Huriaux wrote: Last things from me: * In your debian/templates file, you marked the Default: field as translatable while it should not be (really easy to fix: just remove the underscore in front of Default). * The debconf-updatepo call should be before the dh_clean call in your clean target. Otherwise, if you modify the template file, it will create ll.po~ backup files that won't be removed from your source package. OK. All fixed in 1.0.1-4 James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: openoffice.org-voikko (was: oo2-voikko)
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, James Westby wrote: * Package name: oo2-voikko (now openoffice.org-voikko) * The copyright status of the upstream work seems unclear, I think you should seek to clarify it. Clarified, see changelog. * The system of substrvars you have used is a little strange, I don't know what to make of it. You might also want to use your own namespace for the variables in case they are used by anything else in the future. This is related to something that hopefully will be addressed in the openoffice.org itself, regarding the problematic packages updating in OOo. The problem is the same as with the non-free oo2-soikko (to which oo2-voikko is now the new open source alternative) - http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=360472 It's been fixed with an additional Conflicts in the binary packages etc., but it's not a real solution. Like Rene says in the bug comments: We need a policy for extensions like that, maybe with deregistering all plugins before a OOo upgrade and registering them again. But we need it, and we don't have it yet... * The upstream build uses CC_FLAGS rather that CFLAGS, the consequence of which is that the package is built without -g. Changed to CC_FLAGS, but seems not to build with -g still. * The binary package name differs from the source package name again. This was due to various historical reasons, but we agreed that the source package name change would be just fine. openoffice.org-voikko (1.1-1) unstable; urgency=low . * Change package name to openoffice.org-voikko * Complete ITP (Closes: #388803) * Clean debian/watch * Indent homepages in debian/control by two spaces * Add COPYING from upstream SVN to clarify copyright issues * Update debian/copyright * Change CFLAGS to CC_FLAGS in debian/control * Add #DEBHELPER# tokens to prerm and postinst scripts. * Update Standards-Version to 3.7.2 * Clean up debian/rules (the last three were already in oo2-voikko 1.1-1) URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/openoffice.org-voikko I uploaded this packages despite the remaining problems, so that there'd be the newest version at mentors.debian.net anyway. Hopefully the first 3-4 packages can go in first, and then we'll see if openoffice.org-voikko can be fixed as well. -Timo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reassigning Bugs
At 1159102812 past the epoch, Benjamin Mesing wrote: I have a bug which is not a bug in my package (packagesearch). However, reassigning it to the package that causes that bug (apt-file), would leave it no longer visible for my package, and thus probably result in the bug to be posted again. I've had the exact same problem with one of mine: I found a bug that was reassigned to a library my package links to. This is the correct place for the bug, but if my program is the only one to expose it, I get duplicate reports. If you try the 'reassign XXX foo,bar' trick and it works, please let me/the list know (perhaps the bts docs need a docu-bug filed:) ) -- Jon Dowland http://alcopop.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: xml-im-exporter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marcus Better wrote: Hello, I am looking for a sponsor for my package xml-im-exporter. This is part of the JBoss packaging effort. * Package name: xml-im-exporter Hi Marcus, Are you still looking for a sponsor to upload xml-im-exporter? Did you put it in pkg-java Alioth's subversion? Cheers, - -- Arnaud Vandyck, STE fi, ULg Formateur Cellule Programmation. Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFF60s4vzFZu62tMIRAiebAKCNpP5ls/pMBa9A6O6OdFJaSW5SSACeO8E4 lKnNrr+QOGsu+UNY/G10UC8= =lcIK -END PGP SIGNATURE- begin:vcard fn:Arnaud Vandyck n:Vandyck;Arnaud org;quoted-printable:Universit=C3=A9 de Li=C3=A8ge;STE-Formations Informatiques adr;quoted-printable;quoted-printable;quoted-printable:B=C3=A2timent C1;;Rue Armand St=C3=A9vard, 2;Li=C3=A8ge;;4000;Belgique email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title;quoted-printable:Attach=C3=A9 (formateur) tel;work:+32 4 366 90 55 tel;fax:+32 4 366 90 59 tel;home:+32 4 349 09 69 tel;cell:+32 486 31 10 47 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.ste.fapse.ulg.ac.be/ version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: RFS: xml-im-exporter
Arnaud Vandyck wrote: Are you still looking for a sponsor to upload xml-im-exporter? No, it's in the NEW queue. Did you put it in pkg-java Alioth's subversion? Yes. Marcus pgpBUSbzcwkc6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xml-im-exporter
Arnaud Vandyck wrote: Are you still looking for a sponsor to upload xml-im-exporter? I sponsored it a while ago, it's sitting in NEW. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [uploaded] blacs-mpi (updated package)
Dear Philipp, On 9/24/06, Philipp Frauenfelder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Muammar Am Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 05:41:03PM -0400 hat Muammar Wadih El Khatib Rodriguez getippert: I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Done. Thank you :-) Regards Regards, -- Muammar El Khatib. Linux user: 403107. Key fingerprint = 90B8 BFC4 4A75 B881 39A3 1440 30EB 403B 1270 29F1 http://muammarelkhatib.net | http://www.teorex.org ,''`. : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: drapes (updated)
On (25/09/06 01:48), Francesco Namuri wrote: On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:15:22PM +0100, James Westby wrote: If copyright has been asserted on the file then it must be mentioned in debian/rules, along with its distribution license. If there isn't one you should find out what it is and add it, or drop the file. It's not my solution, :) I have found it taking a look in the dpatch examples (/usr/share/doc/dpatch/examples/dpatch/01_config.dpatch.gz). considering that it is among the examples of dpatch, I have thought that it is released under GPL, your opinion? If dpatch is under GPL then yes probably, but confirmation should be sought. You can also check the debian/copyright of dpatch, as it should be documented in there. James -- James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: webcam-server
On (23/09/06 13:36), Luca bedogni wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package webcam-server. * Package name: webcam-server I cannot sponsor the package for you but I have some comments on it. * You have created a very strange package with all of the debian/ directory in the .orig.tar.gz and an empty diff.gz. Please sort this out as it will cause no end of headaches. * The upstream code says that it uses some code from other projects, but doesn't give their copyright and license information. You should request that is added. * Don't start the long description with a blank line in debian/control. * or single frame snapshots running a web browser. is unclear to me, please rewrite it. * See /usr/share/common-licenses for further informations should point to GPL. The usual string is On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'. * Add a statement about the copyright and license for your Debian packaging. * You don't use DESTDIR in the install target, so that the build fails as it installs the files to dirs that it can't write to. James -- James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: personalbackup
On (23/09/06 19:41), Kim Kuylen wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package personalbackup. * Package name: personalbackup Hi, I cannot sponsor your package, but I have a few comments, * The files you add to the upstream code can be shipped under debian/ I believe, making it clearer they are contributed by you specifically for Debian. If this is not the case, or the changes will be incorporated in to the next upstream release. * I suggest that you add copyright and license headers to all of your source files. If they are not written by you then it is even more important. (For instance I can't see any in the files under lib/). * You should add a copyright and license statement about your Debian packaging as well. * You could add a watch file. * Is the personalbackup.config an artifact from somewhere? I don't see a template file, or postinst to act on the answers. * There is a lintian warning W: personalbackup: init.d-script-missing-lsb-section /etc/init.d/personalbackup Please correct it. * It seems to me that everything that ends up in /var/www/ might belong in /usr/share/. * You ship an empty /tmp/ in the deb, please drop this. James -- James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: drapes (updated)
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:41:06PM +0100, James Westby wrote: On (25/09/06 01:48), Francesco Namuri wrote: On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:15:22PM +0100, James Westby wrote: If copyright has been asserted on the file then it must be mentioned in debian/rules, along with its distribution license. If there isn't one you should find out what it is and add it, or drop the file. It's not my solution, :) I have found it taking a look in the dpatch examples (/usr/share/doc/dpatch/examples/dpatch/01_config.dpatch.gz). considering that it is among the examples of dpatch, I have thought that it is released under GPL, your opinion? If dpatch is under GPL then yes probably, but confirmation should be sought. You can also check the debian/copyright of dpatch, as it should be documented in there. James I have seen that quite a lot packages use it (for example grip), without specifying the license in debian/copyright... regards francesco -- Francesco Namuri [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.namuri.it/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libapp-info-perl (updated package)
On (24/09/06 16:34), Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.50-1 of my package libapp-info-perl. Hi, I cannot sponsor the package but I have reviewed it. It looks very good in general. I do have a couple of minor points. * Is there a better text you can use than It was downloaded from the Comprehensive Perl Archive Network (CPAN). Visit http://www.perl.com/CPAN/ to find a CPAN site near you. and a more precise location? * Your ifndef PERL PERL = $(shell which perl) endif also works as PERL ?= $(shell which perl) Have you considered maintaining the package within the debian-perl group? They are very quick at uploading from what I have seen. If you are not then I would suggest to the DDs on this list that this package is ripe for sponsoring. Nacho has done a very good job, even if he has managed to break linda, the poor girl. James -- James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: personalbackup
James Westby wrote: On (23/09/06 19:41), Kim Kuylen wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package personalbackup. * Package name: personalbackup Hi, I cannot sponsor your package, but I have a few comments, * The files you add to the upstream code can be shipped under debian/ I believe, making it clearer they are contributed by you specifically for Debian. If this is not the case, or the changes will be incorporated in to the next upstream release. I'm afraid I do not quite understand this item :( * I suggest that you add copyright and license headers to all of your source files. If they are not written by you then it is even more important. (For instance I can't see any in the files under lib/). All the code is released by me, but indeed it is better to add it to each file. * You should add a copyright and license statement about your Debian packaging as well. Isn't that what the copyright file under the debian folder is for ? It now contains: This package was debianized by Kim Kuylen [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 7 Jan 2006 17:30:08 +0100. It was downloaded from http://sourceforge.net/projects/personalbackup/ Upstream Author: Kim Kuylen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright: 2004 Kim Kuylen / Melexis License: * You could add a watch file. What do you exactly mean with this ? Do you have an example ? * Is the personalbackup.config an artifact from somewhere? I don't see a template file, or postinst to act on the answers. You are completely correct. This file needs removal. * There is a lintian warning W: personalbackup: init.d-script-missing-lsb-section /etc/init.d/personalbackup Please correct it. I added the following section: ### BEGIN INIT INFO # Provides: personalbackup # Required-Start:$syslog # Required-Stop: $syslog # Should-Start: $syslog # Should-Stop: $syslog # Default-Start: 3 4 5 # Default-Stop: 0 1 6 # Short-Description: Startup personalbackup daemon at boot time # Description: Starts up the personalbackup daemon which will start #backing up all registered clients. ### END INIT INFO * It seems to me that everything that ends up in /var/www/ might belong in /usr/share/. Is this obligatory? Because I thought /var/www/personalbackup was the right location for the web stuff... * You ship an empty /tmp/ in the deb, please drop this. Personalbackup depends on the existence of the /tmp folder...so is it ok to just assume that it is always there ? Thanks for the time you took to investigate my package! Regards, Kim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: personalbackup
On (25/09/06 23:25), Kim Kuylen wrote: James Westby wrote: On (23/09/06 19:41), Kim Kuylen wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package personalbackup. * The files you add to the upstream code can be shipped under debian/ I believe, making it clearer they are contributed by you specifically for Debian. If this is not the case, or the changes will be incorporated in to the next upstream release. I'm afraid I do not quite understand this item :( $ filterdiff -z personalbackup_1.0.3-1.diff.gz -x */debian/* | lsdiff personalbackup-1.0.3/init.d/build/debian-personalbackup personalbackup-1.0.3/init.d/build/redhat-personalbackup personalbackup-1.0.3/tools/build/readdbm personalbackup-1.0.3/personalbackup.spec personalbackup-1.0.3/build/personalbackup.logrotate personalbackup-1.0.3/build/personalbackup.apache Why are these files added in the .diff.gz? * You should add a copyright and license statement about your Debian packaging as well. Isn't that what the copyright file under the debian folder is for ? It now contains: See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html specifically | The Debian packaging is (C) 2006, YOUR NAME [EMAIL PROTECTED] and | is licensed under the GPL, see above. * You could add a watch file. What do you exactly mean with this ? Do you have an example ? http://jameswestby.net/mentors/tutorials/writingawatchfile.html * It seems to me that everything that ends up in /var/www/ might belong in /usr/share/. Is this obligatory? Because I thought /var/www/personalbackup was the right location for the web stuff... I don't understand what the files are, but they looked like they might belong under /usr/share in the FHS, basically are they modified at all? If not then /usr/share is probably the best place for them, if not then /var something is more appropriate. If you explain a little about what the files are then someone might be able to give you a definitive answer. * You ship an empty /tmp/ in the deb, please drop this. Personalbackup depends on the existence of the /tmp folder...so is it ok to just assume that it is always there ? Other packages assume it is there I guess, but I have never seen one ship it. I think you will be safe to remove it, but the /var/run discussion on -devel recently highlights what it means to assume a directory will exist. Thanks for the time you took to investigate my package! No problem. James -- James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: personalbackup
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:32:29PM +0100, James Westby wrote: * You ship an empty /tmp/ in the deb, please drop this. Personalbackup depends on the existence of the /tmp folder...so is it ok to just assume that it is always there ? Other packages assume it is there I guess, but I have never seen one ship it. I think you will be safe to remove it, but the /var/run discussion on -devel recently highlights what it means to assume a directory will exist. /tmp is part of base-files, so you can safelly assume it exists. What you can't assume is any file there will exist for long. -- Rodrigo Gallardo GPG-Fingerprint: 7C81 E60C 442E 8FBC D975 2F49 0199 8318 ADC9 BC28 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Request
On (25/09/06 17:59), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everybody, I dont know if its the right place for that kind of request. If no, Im really sorry to pollute this mailing list. Im just join this mailing list and Im looking for someone that need help for his project. If then, dont hesitate and mail me. Hi, It's kind of you to offer to help, but you should say what you wish to do really. Are you interested in Debian packaging? If so then this is the right list for you. Do you have any experience? What sort of packages would you like to create (perl, web programming, science, games...?). If you tell us what you want to do we can suggest ways that you can get involved. Thanks, James -- James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Tunapie
On (25/09/06 12:11), James Stone wrote: On Sunday 24 September 2006 11:39, James Stone wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package tunapie. Thanks for checking it out. I have made the above addition to the copyright file (tunapie 1.0-5). - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tunapie - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/tunapie/tunapie_1.0-5.dsc m.d.n still has version -4. So you wish to upload an updated version? James -- James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: gtksee (updated package)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.5.6-3 of my package gtksee. It builds these binary packages: gtksee - GTK-based clone of ACDSee (an image viewer) The package is lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gtksee - - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gtksee/gtksee_0.5.6-3.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Eder Ruiz Maria - -- Eder Ruiz Maria - holoturoide -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFGFHj1R4LLG0+grcRAhkAAKC1ekgXctsw9ccEGKSEXoffLJPPXACgpza3 WMb8LDX2tPBm9GweSjDjp/0= =XoAf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libapp-info-perl (updated package)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:05:24 +0100 James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On (24/09/06 16:34), Nacho Barrientos Arias wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.50-1 of my package libapp-info-perl. Hi, Hi James, pleased to meet you again: I cannot sponsor the package but I have reviewed it. Thank you. It looks very good in general. I do have a couple of minor points. * Is there a better text you can use than It was downloaded from the Comprehensive Perl Archive Network (CPAN). Visit http://www.perl.com/CPAN/ to find a CPAN site near you. and a more precise location? Yes, I agree, this isn't a very accurate reference. On the other hand a more precise reference can be found in the package long description, anyway i will consider which you're pointing :) * Your ifndef PERL PERL = $(shell which perl) endif also works as PERL ?= $(shell which perl) Just habits inherited from C and friends, hehe. Have you considered maintaining the package within the debian-perl group? They are very quick at uploading from what I have seen. Sure, this task is in my TODO list (near the head, i promise). If you are not then I would suggest to the DDs on this list that this package is ripe for sponsoring. Nacho has done a very good job, even if he has managed to break linda, the poor girl. *Nacho encourages linda :) Thank you again, James, have a nice day. -- bye, - Nacho -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to request binNMUs?
Am Sonntag, den 24.09.2006, 23:30 +0200 schrieb Daniel Baumann: Daniel Leidert wrote: I would like to know, how a binNMU can be requested? by asking on -release. Thanks. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Tunapie
m.d.n still has version -4. So you wish to upload an updated version? James Don't know what happened, I had a .upload file but it was not on the server. I have re-uploaded it now. James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Tunapie
On (25/09/06 23:34), James Stone wrote: m.d.n still has version -4. So you wish to upload an updated version? James Don't know what happened, I had a .upload file but it was not on the server. I have re-uploaded it now. Thanks, I cannot sponsor, but I have a few comments, * It would be good to add proper license headers in the source files of the package, for instance stating what versions of the GPL are allowed. I think it is better to be explicit, and follow the GNU's guidelines for doing this. * Can you drop the multiple blank lines at the end of debian/control. * Your standards version is out of date, please update it and make any necessary changes. * Please - make tunapie.sf.net a full URI. - make License: say Copyright and License, or pull out the Copyright in to its own section. - add a copyright/license statement about your packaging. * Does your adult/safe debconf stuff work correctly with the new python policy? Does your package even conform? * You call update-menu in post*, what package is this program from? * Please use po-debconf. * Consider a tidy up of debian/rules, removing comments and commented out dh_* calls. * Consider adding a watch file. * Is debconf really the best way of doing the adult/safe configuration? I still get plenty of lintian warnings W: tunapie source: uses-dh-python-with-no-pycompat E: tunapie source: missing-dh_python-build-dependency python | python-dev | python-all-dev I: tunapie: possible-non-posix-code-in-maintainer-script postrm:3 '[ $1 = purge -a ' W: tunapie: no-debconf-config W: tunapie: postinst-uses-db-input Please fix these and I will review the package again. James -- James Westby --GPG Key ID: B577FE13-- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!|7U.L#9E)Tu)T0AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: blacs-pvm (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1-17 of my package blacs-pvm. It builds these binary packages: blacs-pvm-dev - Basic Linear Algebra Comm. Subprograms - Dev. files for PVM blacs-pvm-test - Basic Linear Algebra Comm. Subprograms - Test files for PVM blacs1-pvm - Basic Linear Algebra Comm. Subprograms - Shared libs. for PVM The package is lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 335009 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/blacs-pvm - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/blacs-pvm/blacs-pvm_1.1-17.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks for reading and regards, -- Muammar El Khatib. Linux user: 403107. Key fingerprint = 90B8 BFC4 4A75 B881 39A3 1440 30EB 403B 1270 29F1 http://muammarelkhatib.net | http://www.teorex.org ,''`. : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Version 1 accidentally released as version 2...
Dear mentors, For one of the packages I created, the upstream sources I used were a version 1.x accidentally released as version 2.0 on sourceforge. The differences between the two versions are quite high, as the file formats accepted in input have changed (some added, some removed). I am wondering what I am supposed to do in this case : a) Release a different package which conflicts on the previous, or b) use an epoch and upgrade the current package as version 2.0, or c) ask upstream to increase the version number (for instance they could include add the manpages I wrote for the program) and upgrade then. The options b) or c) could be accompagned by a NEWS or something equivalent if this is not an abuse, to tell that there has been a major version change and that scripts could break. I would favor option a), but if upstream becomes suddently mega-active and releases a major version every half year, this could be a mess. I welcome any opinion or advice on this question. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
