Re: RFS: core++
Florent Rougon wrote: > Err, no. Virtual packages aren't supposed to be used this way. Whenever > one depends or build-depends on a virtual package, it should be done > just like Joachim did: 'gawk | awk', where gawk is a real package > Providing the virtual package awk; this allows to control which package > is installed when doing non-interactive installations (such as happens > on buildds). it is only about the build-depends, not depends. for depends, i agree to the following part at the bottom. for build-depends, i think i don't get your point above. if he doesn't need gawk explicitly but just an arbitrary awk implementation, why still listing it? mawk which provides awk is of priority required... > It also allows apt frontends to select the default choice > when something depends on awk (but in this case, the user can choose to > install another implentation of awk to satisfy the dependency). -- 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: core++
Daniel Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * a build-depends on gawk | awk doesn't make sense. either you use > specifically features of gawk, and then you only depend on gawk, or > your depends is fulfilled by any awk implementations, which means, > you don't need to list it Err, no. Virtual packages aren't supposed to be used this way. Whenever one depends or build-depends on a virtual package, it should be done just like Joachim did: 'gawk | awk', where gawk is a real package Providing the virtual package awk; this allows to control which package is installed when doing non-interactive installations (such as happens on buildds). It also allows apt frontends to select the default choice when something depends on awk (but in this case, the user can choose to install another implentation of awk to satisfy the dependency). -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: core++
Joachim Reichel wrote: > http://www.joachim-reichel.de/debian/sid/core++_1.7-7.dsc your changes were ok, so i uploaded this one. however, for the next revision i would like to suggest you to look at the following two things: * a build-depends on gawk | awk doesn't make sense. either you use specifically features of gawk, and then you only depend on gawk, or your depends is fulfilled by any awk implementations, which means, you don't need to list it; mawk is already included within build-essentials. * gs-alladin should be gs-apfl if you want/need further sponsoring, contact me off-list: http://people.debian.org/~daniel/documents/sponsoring.html#contact -- 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]
RFS: core++
Hi, I'm looking for a sponsor for the recent revision of my core++ package: dget http://www.joachim-reichel.de/debian/sid/core++_1.7-7.dsc Usually, Steve M. Robbins sponsors this package, but he seems to be busy these days. So I'd welcome if someone else would upload this revision. The package takes about 30 minutes to build (extensive testsuite). Thanks, Joachim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Homepage-field in description
Hello Margarita and *, Am 2006-12-14 15:11:48, schrieb Margarita Manterola: > I'm planning on preparing a patch for dpkg to add the Homepage field > to the control fields of the package. Will most probably work on this > during the summer [1]. Maybe then we can stop the stupid "one space" > vs "two spaces" fight. Currently I am using XB-Homepage: http://some-website.tld/ and it works only half, since in the control field it show up as homepage: http://some-website.tld/ Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libssh -- SSH and SCP library (new package)
Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester wrote: > That's what I thought by reading the developer's reference #6.7.8.1, but > someone (can't remember who) told me that orig tarball should unpack to > packagename-version. should, yes. but doesn't have to. loosing the "upstream-digest-compatiblity" is the greater bad than just beeing not so beautiful with directory names (besides, apt-get source enforces unpacking to $package-$version anyway :). > http://dgnr.free.fr/debian/unstable/libssh_0.2~rc-1.dsc uploaded. contact me off-list if you need/want further sponsoring: http://people.debian.org/~daniel/documents/sponsoring.html#contact -- 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: libssh -- SSH and SCP library (new package)
On Thursday 21 December 2006 10:17, Daniel Baumann wrote: > Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester wrote: > > So I've updated my package to fix the version number, and use real > > orig.tar.gz (but still repackaging it to match version number, so > > different md5). > > first, it's good to use the ~, but then, upstream released 0.2rc, not > 0.2rc1. So, the version should be 0.2~rc. I'm not sure why Laurent choose 0.2~rc1, maybe in case there is more than one RC. But since 0.2~rc is less than 0.2~rcX, it should be ok. > second, whatever version you use, there is absolutely no sense in > repacking it here. the directory name when the tarball is unpacked is of > no interest at all. please use the original upstream tarball. That's what I thought by reading the developer's reference #6.7.8.1, but someone (can't remember who) told me that orig tarball should unpack to packagename-version. Anyway, this is fixed. http://dgnr.free.fr/debian/unstable/libssh_0.2~rc-1.dsc Thanks a lot for your help. -- Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester pgpgdOKD4i6Qu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: libssh -- SSH and SCP library (new package)
Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester wrote: > So I've updated my package to fix the version number, and use real > orig.tar.gz (but still repackaging it to match version number, so different > md5). first, it's good to use the ~, but then, upstream released 0.2rc, not 0.2rc1. So, the version should be 0.2~rc. second, whatever version you use, there is absolutely no sense in repacking it here. the directory name when the tarball is unpacked is of no interest at all. please use the original upstream tarball. -- 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]
