Re: RE : : RFS: autoconf-archive (updated package)
Ping ? On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:03 AM, roucaries bastien roucaries.bastien+deb...@gmail.com wrote: Reuploaded a new version comments online On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote: Hi Bastien, On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 07:50 +0200, roucaries bastien wrote: Please do not upload directly, i will upload git tree before under collab maint and postthe final ppackage here. It is more a rfc. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/autoconf-archive/autoconf-archive_2011.04.12-1.dsc Comments are: 1. debian/autoconf-archive.doc-base.autoconf-archive should most probably be named debian/autoconf-archive.doc-base Done 2. Me personally I'd prefer seeing that CDBS be ditched in favour of dh I prefer cdbs (taste mater) 3. your indentation in debian/changelog is somewhat lacking the second level for your - items Done 4. The version that's on mentors.d.n does FTBFS for me in pbuilder with: Add texinfo as build depend I could not test under pbuilder uml due to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=585352 --(snip)-- make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/autoconf-archive-2011.04.12/doc' rm -rf autoconf-archive.htp if /bin/bash /tmp/buildd/autoconf-archive-2011.04.12/build-aux/missing --run makeinfo --html -I . \ -o autoconf-archive.htp autoconf-archive.texi; \ then \ rm -rf autoconf-archive.html; \ if test ! -d autoconf-archive.htp test -d autoconf-archive; then \ mv autoconf-archive autoconf-archive.html; else mv autoconf-archive.htp autoconf-archive.html; fi; \ else \ if test ! -d autoconf-archive.htp test -d autoconf-archive; then \ rm -rf autoconf-archive; else rm -Rf autoconf-archive.htp autoconf-archive.html; fi; \ exit 1; \ fi /tmp/buildd/autoconf-archive-2011.04.12/build-aux/missing: line 52: makeinfo: command not found WARNING: `makeinfo' is missing on your system. You should only need it if you modified a `.texi' or `.texinfo' file, or any other file indirectly affecting the aspect of the manual. The spurious call might also be the consequence of using a buggy `make' (AIX, DU, IRIX). You might want to install the `Texinfo' package or the `GNU make' package. Grab either from any GNU archive site. make[2]: *** [autoconf-archive.html] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/autoconf-archive-2011.04.12/doc' make[1]: *** [html-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/autoconf-archive-2011.04.12' make: *** [debian/stamp-makefile-build] Error 2 dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 --(snip)-- 5. As Deng Xiyue has retired, I think it'd be ok to remove him entirely from the Uploaders field. Done put myself as maintainer and it is Qingning Huo q...@mayhq.co.uk that retired. Deng Xiyue is still an uploader (but busy by real life) Bastien -- Best regards, Kilian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAE2SPAZA6=mbrE-H0AQrB5i6RWK-no49u0OKxb22EUZsmS=u...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: usb-imagewriter
Hi Kilian, On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 16:09 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: Hi Fabrizio, So you are seriously stepping up as new upstream? Including you are willing to pick up and maintain all development required to fix eventual security holes that may pop up in the future etc.? sorry for replying you just now, but yesterday I was busy. I really would like maintain the actual as is (if it's possibile) and, if upstream will release a new upstream version, upgrade the package. Cheers, Fabrizio. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: xnoise (2nd try)
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:03:24PM +0200, shuerhaaken wrote:
That's what Suggests/Recommends are made for. E.g. Rhythmbox Recommends
rhythmbox-plugins, quodlibet Suggests quodlibet-plugins... From Policy §7.2
The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together with
this one in all but unusual installations: seems what you need.
My suggestion was mainly based on personal preference (I like to choose if I
actually want the plugins or not, if they are not strictly needed) and on
what other packages do. It is not a requirement, hence you can do whatever
you want.
If that's the Debian way, I will just leave it like that and ship an
extra package for xnoise-plugins
Ok, there are a couple of issue thought:
- you should append something like (plugins) to the short description so
that it does not duplicate the description of the main package.
- the -plugins package right now Depends on various -dev packages. I do not
think they are needed.
Also, libcairo-dev is duplicated in Build-Depends.
Btw, the package didn't show up on mentors.d.n yet, hence I couldn't check
the modifications you did (it may just be a problem of mentors.d.n... it
happens sometimes).
Hmm. I uploaded and it was visible here:
http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=xnoise
But I also couldn't get it via repo. So I'll upload again in a few
minutes.
I can see it now.
Final suggestion (I forgot to say this in the previous email), you may want
to join the Debian Multimedia Team [0] to maintain this package (it
would be easier for you to find an uploader and some help to maintain the
package). Please have a look at our policies [1] (maintain the package on
git using git-buildpackage, Debian Multimedia Team is the Maintainer and
you the Uploader, ...). If you are interested and ok with our workflow feel
free to subscribe and post this RFS to the team's mailing list [2] (you will
also need an account on alioth.debian.org).
I'll have a look into that. Hope they don't just pull out the current
git version instead of a release.
Not sure I've understood, but the git repository is only used to keep track
of the Debian-related modifications (those under debian/), and,
additionally, it holds a convenience copy of the upstream sources (imported
from the upstream tarball) to ease building. Have a look at
http://git.debian.org for some examples (our packages are those under the
pkg-multimedia namespace).
Cheers
--
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;inidehG ordnasselA;eg;say~~reverse'
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110712095112.ga8...@pc-ale.fastwebnet.it
RFS: qasmixer (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12.2-1 of my package qasmixer. It builds these binary packages: qasmixer - ALSA sound mixer with a size adaptive QT4 GUI The package appears to be lintian clean. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qasmixer - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qasmixer/qasmixer_0.12.2-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Sebastian Holtermann -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e1c2504.7000...@gmx.de
Re: RFS: xnoise (2nd try)
Hello Alessandro Ghedini - you should append something like (plugins) to the short description so that it does not duplicate the description of the main package. Done - the -plugins package right now Depends on various -dev packages. I do not think they are needed. Replaced them with binary packages in the debian/control file Not sure I've understood, but the git repository is only used to keep track of the Debian-related modifications (those under debian/), and, additionally, it holds a convenience copy of the upstream sources (imported from the upstream tarball) to ease building. Ah, ok For now, I uploaded again with the current changes. best regards Jörn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAD8eXvxcYb3jXX0ObCtyGgU67-bkNnESNu=el0nbtqzyzhk...@mail.gmail.com
RFS: gforth (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.7.0+ds1-6 of my package gforth. It contains two years' worth of packaging fixes along with an attempt at multiarch conversion and an acknowledged NMU. I am asking on the list since Patrick Matthäi, who kindly uploaded a couple of previous iterations of my adopted gforth packaging, seems to have been busy when I contacted him a couple of times during the past year and a half with RFS's. There are three binary packages: gforth - GNU Forth Language Environment gforth-common - GNU Forth architecture-independent dictionaries gforth-lib - GNU Forth Language Environment architecture-dependent files The gforth-lib package is new, introduced for the purpose of a proper multiarch conversion - it contains only the minimum of arch-specific compiled C code and Forth images that go into /usr/lib/gforth and cannot be shared by GForth instances installed side by side. I realize that this means that this upload shall have to go through NEW, but oh well, that's life :) The upload would fix two bugs, 587318 and 615142, both related to the Emacs Lisp files installed by GForth. It has been tested with Lintian and pbuilder. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gforth/gforth_0.7.0+ds1-6.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. If, in addition, the sponsor would be so kind as to set the DMUA flag, I'd be very grateful - although, of course, this might not be proper for a first-time sponsoring of this particular package. JFYI, here's the latest changelog entry: gforth (0.7.0+ds1-6) unstable; urgency=low * Fix the watch file syntax so the +ds1 part is properly stripped off. * Convert to the 3.0 (quilt) format. * Make gforth.el register the .fs, .4th, and .fth filename suffixes. Closes: #587318 * Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.2: - gforth-common now Breaks older gforth versions, no longer Conflicts with them * Use dpkg-buildflags from dpkg-dev 1.15.7 to obtain the default values for CFLAGS, CPPFLAGS, and LDFLAGS. * Update the copyright file to the latest version of the DEP 5 format and bump the year on my copyright notice. * Shorten the Vcs-Browser URL. * Use the debhelper plugin provided by autotools-dev = 20100122.1 to refresh the config.sub and config.guess files. * Also byte-compile the emacs mode for emacs-snapshot. Closes: #615142 * Acknowledge the NMU; thanks, Luk! * libffcall1 seems to build fine on armel now, so use it everywhere. * Bump the debhelper compatibility level to 8: - reorder the dh helper arguments to place the sequence name first * Switch to bzip2 compression for the Debian tarball. * Convert to multiarch: - move /usr/lib/*/gforth/ to a new gforth-lib package and mark it as Multi-Arch: same - mark gforth and gforth-common as Multi-Arch: foreign - add the 10-engine-subst patch to fix the libdir handling in engine/ * Override some more Lintian warnings: - more unusual interpreter for GForth and its kernel - no debhelper 9 dependency yet, the compatibility level is for multiarch only * Move the Debian packaging to Gitorious and update the Vcs-Git and Vcs-Browser URLs. -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:50:11 +0300 G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net r...@freebsd.org pe...@packetscale.com PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 If you think this sentence is confusing, then change one pig. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: libgeier (updated package)
Andreas Moog am...@ubuntu.com writes: On 07/11/2011 10:03 PM, Olaf Dietsche wrote: Andreas Moogam...@ubuntu.com writes: On 07/11/2011 08:17 PM, Olaf Dietsche wrote: I didn't look into your package, but still having an empty dependency_libs entry is important for multiarch support. According to http://release.debian.org/~aba/la/current.txt (which is linked from http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/05/msg01003.html) xmlsec1 is OK, so you should really clean this entry in your libgeier.la. I don't understand this either. If xmlsec1 is ok and libtool copies these dependencies into libgeier.la, why is it an error for libgeier to include this information, but not for xmlsec1? If you look at libxmlsec1-dev you will notice that the dependencies_libs entry is empty, as it should be. $ dpkg -l 'libxmlsec1*' [...] ii libxmlsec11.2.14-1+squeeze1 XML security library Squeeze? The current version in unstable is 1.2.14-1.2. Well, my current version is squeeze :-) Anyway, I looked into unstable and patched /usr/lib/libxmlsec1*.la temporarily, which means clearing dependency_libs. Unfortunately, this doesn't help. Libtool (ld) still links libgeier against all the (unnecessary) libs as before. dpkg-shlibdeps warns about and ldd libgeier.so outputs the same list as before. So, clearing dependency_libs alone, doesn't help really, because the additional libs are also introduced through pkg-config. Maybe it would help, if libtool added something like --as-needed or similar to the link command line. But I'm neither a libtool nor a ld expert. If this is a bug for libgeier, libtool shouldn't copy these dependencies in the first place. And if an empty dependency_libs entry is important for multiarch support, why is it important for libgeier, but not for xmlsec1? It's important for ALL packages to either ship no la-file at all (if no other package references it) OR to have at least an empty dependencies_libs entry in the la-file. libxmlsec1-dev's la-file is empty, libgeier's isn't. If libxmlsec1-dev's were empty, we wouldn't discuss this matter for libgeier. See above, in the current unstable version the dependency_libs field is empty. Is there any dh_fixup_la_file debhelper or is it up to every single maintainer to add some sed fiddling? Regards, Olaf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r55vfw1q@rat.lan
Re: RFS: libgeier (updated package)
On 07/12/2011 03:49 PM, Olaf Dietsche wrote: Anyway, I looked into unstable and patched /usr/lib/libxmlsec1*.la temporarily, which means clearing dependency_libs. Unfortunately, this doesn't help. Libtool (ld) still links libgeier against all the (unnecessary) libs as before. dpkg-shlibdeps warns about and ldd libgeier.so outputs the same list as before. Yes, of course, the la file has nothing to do with the actual linking. If you want to reduce those warnings, either build with ld --as-needed or omit the libraries from the command line. So, clearing dependency_libs alone, doesn't help really, because the additional libs are also introduced through pkg-config. The purpose of this change is the following: libfoo1 is a normal library, sitting in /usr/lib/libfoo.so|la libbar1 uses some symbols from libfoo, thus has 'dependency_libs: /usr/lib/libfoo.la' in it's la-file. foobar is a program, linking against libbar1, during the linking, dependency_libs is evaluated, all is fine. Now libfoo1 is converted to multiarch, going into /usr/lib/triplet foobar is now linked against libbar1, which still points to /usr/lib/libfoo.la - which doesn't exist anymore, the build fails. See http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/LAFileRemoval If libxmlsec1-dev's were empty, we wouldn't discuss this matter for libgeier. See above, in the current unstable version the dependency_libs field is empty. Is there any dh_fixup_la_file debhelper or is it up to every single maintainer to add some sed fiddling? I don't think so. Ideally, all .la files will be dropped from the archive, once they aren't referenced anymore by other libraries, so it's an unnecessary helper. New library packages shouldn't install the la file anyway. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e1c6125.2090...@ubuntu.com
Re: RFS: assaultcube-data (updated package)
On 10/07/11 15:18, Michael Tautschnig wrote: Hi, Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1.0.4+repacknot1-1 of my package assaultcube-data. It builds these binary packages: assaultcube-data - data files for AssaultCube assaultcube-server-anticheat - AssaultCube server with closed source anti-cheat module The changes are: * Update manpages - CC-BY-NC-SA (previous license was incorrect given content used) - Few formatting fixes * Update debian/copyright - Note license of manpages - Files: headers pointing at directory instead of license file. * Update debian/rules to dh7 format * New package: assaultcube-server-anticheat, installs upstream server binaries * Create a wrapper script for the server with --help for manpage * Don't repack anymore. [...] Thanks a lot for updating this package. Yet the new non-repacking leaves some doubts to me: - Don't repack anymore. is a nice hint that something has changed, but yet it left me to find this out myself via the debdiff. - Using repacknot1 as version appears to be a cruel hack. Ideally we'd have a new upstream version that could be packaged, but if that doesn't happen soonish, we'll have to live with that hack. (Introducing an epoch doesn't seem like a better solution either...) - Why do server binaries belong to a data package? Isn't that just a hack to avoid a new source package? - The original license appears to disallow re-packaging/splitting, hence there must be some exclusive exception provided to Debian. This is, however, not detailed in the copyright file. Best regards, Michael Hello. - True, I've changed it to read Upstream tarball no longer repacked; binaries not removed since used, would this be reasonably verbose? - Yeah, 1.1.0.5 is in the works, but when is very uncertain (maybe this year...). I discussed the renaming on IRC (mentors/games) and it seemed like this was the most reasonable solution. - Would splitting it into two source packages be better, it seems a tad unnecessary? Upstream distributes one AC package with precompiled binaries and data for compile-less usage (which Debian uses only for data currently), and an AC-source package, which Debian uses to create the packages with the binaries. Since the binaries comes in the upstream tarball which Debian calls -data I guessed it would be best to use this source package as-is.. - Noted (complicates the current deletion of the binaries as well, I guess), I've sent the question of special permission for the Debian project to the main project people, we'll see where that discussion leads. Thanks for reviewing! :) -- arand -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e1c5ec0.60...@gmail.com
RFS: audacious-plugins (backported package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.4.4-1~bpo60+1 of my package audacious-plugins. It builds these binary packages: audacious-plugins - Base plugins for audacious audacious-plugins-dbg - Audacious-Plugins debug symbols The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/audacious-plugins - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/audacious-plugins/audacious-plugins_2.4.4-1~bpo60+1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Thanks -- Cyril Davromaniak Lavier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e44bb0a30813194401845528d6422...@davromaniak.eu
Re: RFS: xnoise (2nd try)
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:45:52PM +0200, shuerhaaken wrote:
- the -plugins package right now Depends on various -dev packages. I do not
think they are needed.
Replaced them with binary packages in the debian/control file
Again, you don't need to manually add libraries to Depends given that you
are using ${shlibs:Depends}. Let the tool do its job :)
Cheers
--
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;inidehG ordnasselA;eg;say~~reverse'
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110712163537.ga20...@pc-ale.fastwebnet.it
Re: RFS: qasmixer (updated package)
Hi Sebastian, On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 12:42 +0200, Sebastian H. wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.12.2-1 of my package qasmixer. - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/qasmixer/qasmixer_0.12.2-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Rebuilt with the orig.tar.gz (instead of the orig.tar.bz2 that you had) as debian/watch pulled that one in for me, signed and uploaded. If you see tar.bz2 as the better alternative please bump debian/watch to reflect this. Thanks! -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: gogglesmm
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:25:40 +0100 Michael Tautschnig m...@debian.org wrote: Hi, Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package gogglesmm. * Package name: gogglesmm Version : 0.12.2-5 Upstream Author : Sander Jansen s.jan...@gmail.com * URL : http://code.google.com/p/gogglesmm/ * License : GPLv3 Section : sound It builds these binary packages: gogglesmm - Goggles Music Manager The package appears to be lintian clean. [...] I've taken a look at your package and noticed the following issues that I'd like to see addressed before sponsoring its upload: - No ITP. Please file an ITP first and close it in your changelog. - The conflicts/replaces for musicmanager-tray, musicmanager seem strange as neither of which exists as a Debian package. - debian/copyright: Please indicate which version of the GPL your packaging conforms to. Updating debian/copyright to DEP-5 format would be a plus. - Some header files in src/ are LGPL, not GPL. Needs to be noted in debian/copyright. - Have you considered moving to v3 (quilt) source format, dropping dpatch? - I can't confirm the lintian-cleanliness, there's one warning about the lack of a man page and several info-level messages. Hope this helps, Michael Hi, Thank you for reviewing my package. I have fixed most of the issues. I also change to the new source format. The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gogglesmm - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gogglesmm/gogglesmm_0.12.2-7.dsc Left is the missing man page. The original package does not provide a man page, so I can not provide one. Kind Regards, Hendrik -- Hendrik Rittich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: gogglesmm
Hi, [...] Left is the missing man page. The original package does not provide a man page, so I can not provide one. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that argument - it's quite frequent that Debian package maintainers have to provide additional man pages because upstream doesn't provide one. Adding man pages in no way differs from other patches. Best, Michael pgpqG0zxFhzr4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: qasmixer (updated package)
I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Rebuilt with the orig.tar.gz (instead of the orig.tar.bz2 that you had) as debian/watch pulled that one in for me, signed and uploaded. Thank you Kilian! If you see tar.bz2 as the better alternative please bump debian/watch to reflect this. No, that's ok. The reference upstream file should be the tar.gz for some time. I'll use that file for any builds to come. Regards, Sebastian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e1c9b14.6070...@gmx.de
Re: RFS: gogglesmm
Michael Tautschnig mt at debian.org writes: Hi, [...] Left is the missing man page. The original package does not provide a man page, so I can not provide one. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that argument - it's quite frequent that Debian package maintainers have to provide additional man pages because upstream doesn't provide one. Adding man pages in no way differs from other patches. Best, Michael Not sure what the exact issue here is, but the upstream source tarball does come with a manpage. Cheers, Sander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20110713t013053-...@post.gmane.org
Checking package version numbers
Hello All: I recall that there was a script which permits one to compare package version names to determine which one is greater. I just can't remember the name of the script. Any clues? Carlo -- Carlo U. Segre -- Professor of Physics Associate Dean for Graduate Admissions, Graduate College Illinois Institute of Technology Voice: 312.567.3498Fax: 312.567.3494 se...@iit.edu http://phys.iit.edu/~segre se...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.02.1107121817280.28...@oxide.phys.iit.edu
Re: Checking package version numbers
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Carlo Segre wrote: I recall that there was a script which permits one to compare package version names to determine which one is greater. I just can't remember the name of the script. Any clues? dpkg --compare-versions -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6hrznyutoxypd26c-fsj_g8ssewtsxqwzrcaizu2xp...@mail.gmail.com
