Re: Rebuilding the whole archive.
-=| Charles Plessy, Mon, 14 May 2007 09:15:23 +0900 |=- > I would like to do a mass rebuild of at least a significant part of > the archive to investigate a potential problem on G5 running the > powerpc port. I am currently trying to use Impressive! > /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuildd/buildd.sh from the > pbuilder package, but I have a few problems with it. Perhaps you may use strace -p $PID for some clue who is waiting for what? > Even if I manage with buildd.sh, I would be interested to know about > alternatives. My main interest is to generate build logs, but I do not > need to keep the .debs. Are there better tools for this ? cowbuilder should spare you some untar time. I've heard sbuild is used as an autobuilder these days. Never used it myself though. -- damJabberID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Rebuilding the whole archive.
Dear Mentors, I would like to do a mass rebuild of at least a significant part of the archive to investigate a potential problem on G5 running the powerpc port. I am currently trying to use /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuildd/buildd.sh from the pbuilder package, but I have a few problems with it. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=423483 I also wanted to try wanna-build, but the only archive I found explicitely forbids the usage of the program: (http://svn.cyberhqz.com/svn/wanna-build/debian/changelog) Since this was added after the parution of Julien Danjou's buildd howto, I am taking the message seriously and will not use wanna-build. Even if I manage with buildd.sh, I would be interested to know about alternatives. My main interest is to generate build logs, but I do not need to keep the .debs. Are there better tools for this ? 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]
Re: NEED MENTOR- HELP ME!!!!!!
On Sunday 13 May 2007 10:31:11 bharath kumar gopalan wrote: > I would like to get involved myself in the debian development especially > in the areas of kernel developent and device drivers development. I know > quite some c,c++ since I am very new to this I would like to know if > anyone is intrested in guiding me. This list is focused on mentoring people to assist them in packaging software for Debian, not for general free software development. If you are interested in packaging software for Debian, I suggest you give it a try, and ask on this list whenever you run into trouble——we will be more than happy to help. However, if you are more interested in actually doing programming for a OS kernel (e.g. Linux), you'd be better off asking in lists specific to those areas. If you still feel like you need some specific guidance on where to start or who to talk to, you can also feel free to contact me personally and I would be happy to help guide you to the right places. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpywD4NWvwwy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: NMU for aolserver4-nsimap
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:42:21PM +0200, Mario Iseli wrote: > I would be happy if anyone could upload > http://www.marioiseli.com/debian-nmu/unstable/source/aolserver4-nsimap_3.1-3.1.dsc > for me, it's just a simple FTBFS fix and the maintainer agreed to upload > the NMU already since he isn't really interested in maintaining the > package anymore. Maybe I will orphan the package later and prepare a > clean QA upload, but for now I think it's the best to upload the NMU to > remove yet another RC-bug. > Thank you, please CC me for answers, I'm not subscribed to > debian-mentors. I don't see any point in trying to upload this right now, when the package's build dependencies (aolserver4) aren't installable on the buildds? http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=aolserver4-nsimap&arch=alpha&ver=3.1-3%2Bb1&stamp=1178149073 -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: NMU for aolserver4-nsimap
Hello, I would be happy if anyone could upload http://www.marioiseli.com/debian-nmu/unstable/source/aolserver4-nsimap_3.1-3.1.dsc for me, it's just a simple FTBFS fix and the maintainer agreed to upload the NMU already since he isn't really interested in maintaining the package anymore. Maybe I will orphan the package later and prepare a clean QA upload, but for now I think it's the best to upload the NMU to remove yet another RC-bug. Thank you, please CC me for answers, I'm not subscribed to debian-mentors. -- .''`. Mario Iseli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud user of Debian unstable `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NEED MENTOR- HELP ME!!!!!!
On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:01:11 +0530 "bharath kumar gopalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to get involved myself in the debian development especially in > the areas of kernel developent and device drivers development. I know quite > some c,c++ since I am very new to this I would like to know if anyone is > intrested in guiding me. Debian development doesn't necessarily involve writing new kernel code or new device drivers, that's generally an "upstream" task - see SourceForge or Savannah or the kernel development sites. Debian is about some native packages (to do with tasks specific to Debian only) and packaging upstream code for Debian users. Many Debian Developers also have upstream projects, whether in C/C++, Perl, Python or whatever, but the focus of this list is Debian packaging, not upstream development. The mentors list is for helping people who have already prepared a package. Follow the New Maintainer Guide [0] and build your first package, then come back to the mentors list. [0] http://www.uk.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ See also: http://www.uk.debian.org/devel/ http://www.uk.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ http://www.uk.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpkxv7EGleor.pgp Description: PGP signature
NEED MENTOR- HELP ME!!!!!!
Hi, I would like to get involved myself in the debian development especially in the areas of kernel developent and device drivers development. I know quite some c,c++ since I am very new to this I would like to know if anyone is intrested in guiding me. Thanks, Bharath
Re: QGFE, a couple of questions
* Giorgio Pioda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070513 14:12]: > 1) The icons used by qgfe are taken from the following *.rpm: > menu-icons-default-0.1-alt2.noarch.rpm > which is distributed under GPL licence. Is it > a problem? (I didn't succeed in finding the copyright of the icons, but > I may resolve this in the future...) If you only find them in the place they are supposed to be taken from, and that archive claims a common copyright and license for all it contents, it would be a good bet to assume they are made by those who made the package (and thus claim copyright for it. I'm no lawyer, but i guess believing people cannot be a problem if you have no hints or reasons to mistrust them). Only make sure that your debian/copyright files lists their copyright (a little more of additional information cannot hurt, though). > 2) In the debian/rules I didn't explicitly set CXXFLAGS, but these flags > are set (spontaneusly and correctly) in the Makefile generated by qmake > and fit the policy 10.1. Do I have to express CXXFLAG explicitly in > debian/rules or is sufficient to leave the as is? Actually 10.1 recommends to have different compile flags depending on DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. Having an easy no-brainer way for people to compile your package with full debug information (i.e. -O0 -g and no stripping) makes it much easier for people to file meaningful bug reports. So unless your build system needs major patching to archieve this, I'd strongly suggest it. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QGFE, a couple of questions
On Sun, 13 May 2007 14:11:48 +0200 Giorgio Pioda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hallo mentors, > > I've packaged qgfe and is now almost mature, downloadable at: > > http://web.ticino.com/gfwp/debian/qgfe-1.0/ The location of the .dsc file is what mentors need: http://web.ticino.com/gfwp/debian/qgfe-1.0/qgfe_1.0-1.dsc Plus the description of the package: Description: QT based Gnuplot Front End Qgfe is a GUI for gnuplot so that there is no need to learn gnuplot language to use it. Which seems far too brief to me. If one does not need to learn gnuplot to use your package, you can reasonably assume that one might not have that clear an understanding of what gnuplot can do and therefore your description is less than adequate. Also, are there features of gnuplot that your package cannot replicate? (It's fairly common for a GUI application to be unable to use all of the features of the command line version.) Unfortunately, I will not have time to sponsor this package. Hopefully one of the other sponsors will take it from here. I've only taken a cursory glance at the package, there may be more errors than just this: You should include the full licence notice in debian/copyright: This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2 dated June, 1991. This package is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this package; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. > 1) The icons used by qgfe are taken from the following *.rpm: > menu-icons-default-0.1-alt2.noarch.rpm > which is distributed under GPL licence. Is it > a problem? (I didn't succeed in finding the copyright of the icons, but > I may resolve this in the future...) Do you have reason to believe that the icons would be licenced differently to the declaration in that package? After all, that package would seem to be only for the icons. > 2) In the debian/rules I didn't explicitly set CXXFLAGS, but these flags > are set (spontaneusly and correctly) in the Makefile generated by qmake > and fit the policy 10.1. Do I have to express CXXFLAG explicitly in > debian/rules or is sufficient to leave the as is? Definitely leave as is. Things like this should NOT be overridden without good reason - cross-compilation of such packages may require different flags to be specified and it is a major PITA if the package clobbers the cross-compiling options. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgp2JESHvas8E.pgp Description: PGP signature
QGFE, a couple of questions
Hallo mentors, I've packaged qgfe and is now almost mature, downloadable at: http://web.ticino.com/gfwp/debian/qgfe-1.0/ I still have 2 questions about it: 1) The icons used by qgfe are taken from the following *.rpm: menu-icons-default-0.1-alt2.noarch.rpm which is distributed under GPL licence. Is it a problem? (I didn't succeed in finding the copyright of the icons, but I may resolve this in the future...) 2) In the debian/rules I didn't explicitly set CXXFLAGS, but these flags are set (spontaneusly and correctly) in the Makefile generated by qmake and fit the policy 10.1. Do I have to express CXXFLAG explicitly in debian/rules or is sufficient to leave the as is? cheers Giorgio Pioda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
