Re: RFS: Mupen64 -- Nintendo 64 emulator and plugins
I've used mupen64 while using gentoo, and it was very useful, but upstream is kind of insane. The main author doesn't see the benefit of having a public VCS repository, because he thinks that emulators are too difficult to make casual contributions to, and in between releases, his code doesn't work. Releases are made in the form of tarballs posted to a webforum. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Mupen64 -- Nintendo 64 emulator and plugins
Ryan Schultz wrote: > * License : GPL > DFSG repackaging removes a plugin with ambiguous licensing. It seems there's still an awful lot of files without explicit licenses[0]. Can you get upstream to take a look and perhaps rectify this? Also, the whole upstream build-system seems completely misused. I didn't go very deep into the package (the build system scared me :-) ), but here are some remarks: - You could bump to debhelper >= 5 (both build-deps and compat file) - Even though the build-system is a mess, perhaps patching the config.h instead of copying over it would be better? - The whole arch-dependent logic for passing arguments to MAKE could be avoided, specially since they're practically the same for all arches. Use the schemes provided in the reference and policy to handle '-O2 -Wall -g'. Probably just adding '-DX86' in case of i386 and '-DCOMPARE_CORE -D_BIG_ENDIAN' in all other cases could be better then setting the whole option line in one go. (anyway, are these options really necessary?) - Changelog.DFSG shouldn't be in the source root, instead it should be moved to somewhere like debian/README.debian or debian/README.Debian-source. - The DFSG tarball should only have the offending files removed, the other changes mentioned in Changelog.DFSG should be handled via patching on build-time (via dpatch, quilt, etc). Hope it helps. Cheers [0] since many files have a non-standard copyright header, I found them via a dirty 'licensecheck -r ./ | grep UNKNOWN | cut -d: -f1 | while read file; do grep -L "General Public Licence" $file; done' -- Leo "costela" Antunes [insert a witty retort here] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: dblatex (updated package): 2nd try
"Leo \"costela\" Antunes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andreas Hoenen wrote: > >> I have just uploaded dblatex 0.2.8-2 to mentors.debian.net [1]. >> Regarding the new lintian warning 'spelling-error-in-changelog' I have >> opened a bug report [2]. >> >> [1] dget >> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dblatex/dblatex_0.2.8-2.dsc > > Now there's just one last minor problem: since you closed some bugs on > 0.2.8-1 which never got uploaded, you would have to close them manually > as the automatic bug handling wouldn't be triggered for them. Or you (the sponsor) use "dpkg-buildpackage -v" when building the package to be uploaded. Then all relevant changelog entries will be included in .changes. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: dblatex (updated package): 2nd try
Felipe Sateler wrote: > This can be triggered with the -v option to dpkg-buildpackage Live and learn. Never noticed that one before! :-) Uploading. Cheers -- Leo "costela" Antunes [insert a witty retort here] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: dblatex (updated package): 2nd try
Leo "costela" Antunes wrote: > Andreas Hoenen wrote: > >> I have just uploaded dblatex 0.2.8-2 to mentors.debian.net [1]. >> Regarding the new lintian warning 'spelling-error-in-changelog' I have >> opened a bug report [2]. >> >> [1] dget >> [http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dblatex/dblatex_0.2.8-2.dsc > > Now there's just one last minor problem: since you closed some bugs on > 0.2.8-1 which never got uploaded, you would have to close them manually > as the automatic bug handling wouldn't be triggered for them. This can be triggered with the -v option to dpkg-buildpackage -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pkg-ntp] - where does /etc/default/ntpdate come from?
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 06:53:39PM +0100, D. Pathirana wrote: > Dear mentors! > > I am new in Debian Package Maintaining. I try to build some packages for > my own to get a feeling how everything works. I have read a few > docs[1][2] to find a solution for a specific problem that bugs me since > days now... > > I would have asked the pkg-ntp-maintainers list for help but Chapter 10 > of the Debian New Maintainers' Guide[3] tells me to ask here first.. I > hope it's correct and somebody can help... > > So here is my problem: > > I've been trying to figure out how the installation process of the > package "ntpdate" works. After installation the configuration file > "/etc/default/ntpdate" is created. But: I can not find any evidence of > it being used throughout the whole debian directory in the source-package. dpkg -L ntpdate |xargs grep -e /etc/default/ntpdate Also (not so useful in this case): find /var/lib/dpkg/info |xargs grep -we etc/default/ntpdate > > Actually there IS THE file in "debian/ntpdate.default" but is never > refered in the rules file or elsewhere. > > I believe it has something to do with .default suffix but I was not able > to find any docs about what and how it is going on. So where does the > magic happen? I just realized that you weren't asking where the file is used at runtime but rather at compile time. Check dh_installinit (debhelper uses lots of these kinds of input files). Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: dblatex (updated package): 2nd try
Andreas Hoenen wrote: > I have just uploaded dblatex 0.2.8-2 to mentors.debian.net [1]. > Regarding the new lintian warning 'spelling-error-in-changelog' I have > opened a bug report [2]. > > [1] dget > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dblatex/dblatex_0.2.8-2.dsc Now there's just one last minor problem: since you closed some bugs on 0.2.8-1 which never got uploaded, you would have to close them manually as the automatic bug handling wouldn't be triggered for them. I don't know if there's anything on mentors.d.o that stops you from doing this, but I'd personally say you don't need to bump versions before the package actually gets into the archive, so you could just stick with '-1' for a Debian version, so merging the changelog entries should do the trick. Cheers -- Leo "costela" Antunes [insert a witty retort here] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [pkg-ntp] - where does /etc/default/ntpdate come from?
D. Pathirana wrote: > I've been trying to figure out how the installation process of the > package "ntpdate" works. After installation the configuration file > "/etc/default/ntpdate" is created. But: I can not find any evidence of > it being used throughout the whole debian directory in the source-package. > > Actually there IS THE file in "debian/ntpdate.default" but is never > refered in the rules file or elsewhere. > > I believe it has something to do with .default suffix but I was not able > to find any docs about what and how it is going on. So where does the > magic happen? man dh_installinit: If a file named debian/package.default exists, then it is installed into etc/default/package in the package build directory, with "package" replaced by the package name. -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pkg-ntp] - where does /etc/default/ntpdate come from?
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 06:53:39PM +0100, D. Pathirana wrote: > Actually there IS THE file in "debian/ntpdate.default" but is never > refered in the rules file or elsewhere. > > I believe it has something to do with .default suffix but I was not able > to find any docs about what and how it is going on. So where does the > magic happen? dh_installinit You can run $ DH_VERBOSE=1 debian/rules build to see exactly what each debhelper program is doing. -- Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[pkg-ntp] - where does /etc/default/ntpdate come from?
Dear mentors! I am new in Debian Package Maintaining. I try to build some packages for my own to get a feeling how everything works. I have read a few docs[1][2] to find a solution for a specific problem that bugs me since days now... I would have asked the pkg-ntp-maintainers list for help but Chapter 10 of the Debian New Maintainers' Guide[3] tells me to ask here first.. I hope it's correct and somebody can help... So here is my problem: I've been trying to figure out how the installation process of the package "ntpdate" works. After installation the configuration file "/etc/default/ntpdate" is created. But: I can not find any evidence of it being used throughout the whole debian directory in the source-package. Actually there IS THE file in "debian/ntpdate.default" but is never refered in the rules file or elsewhere. I believe it has something to do with .default suffix but I was not able to find any docs about what and how it is going on. So where does the magic happen? Thanks for any help! Regards, - Darsha [1] http://www.debian.com/doc/manuals/maint-guide/index.en.html#contents [2] http://www.debian.com/doc/manuals/maint-guide/index.en.html#contents [3] http://www.debian.com/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-helpme.en.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
