Re: multiple binary packages (again)
On Sun, Aug 15, 1999 at 01:55:33AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Apart from that, isn't there a non-US problem with the SSL support ? Take > > care not to install in main something that could not be exported by US > > residents. > right, i have to break source in two anyway. i can't put source in main > distribution that require some non-US packages, can i? No, but you can put source in non-US/main that builds both main and non-US/main binary packages. -=- James Mastros
Re: Depends generated by maintainer scripts
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 10:54:00PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> the process of getting the binary from the official site. I have that
> working using wget in the postinst script. However that means that
> setiathome has to be made dependent on wget. At a later point of time,
> if the user wants to remove wget, he/she would have to remove
> setiathome first or use dpkg exceptions to remove wget.
You could simply "sugest" (or even recommend) wget instead of the
heavy-handed "depend", and give the user a message and tell them to download
the tarball and put it in /tmp if they don't have wget. This would probably
work fairly well -- though I'm not certian if you'd get the ordering you
want if wget and dpkg are installed in the same {apt,dpkg} run.
-=- James Mastros
--
True mastery is knowing enough to BS the rest.
Re: library dependency problem
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 02:19:33AM +0200, Jim Mintha wrote: > slang1 (<< 1.3), slang1 (>> 1.2.2-0) > > When I took over the slang1 package I failed to notice the > shlibs that defined the above. The problem is that version 1.3.x is > compatible with 1.2. This leaves me with a number of options: Hmm, looks like I shouldn't have not filed that wishlist bug on the theory that maintainer knew what they were doing better then I. > 2. Continue to call it slang1 and upload the new version. It will > conflict with the old one, replace it and then break the dependencies > of everything that depends on slang. (note: only breaks the > dependencies, the packages would otherwise run fine) Thereby forcing > everyone else to upgrade their (slang dependent) packages. This is, IMHO, the best option. The jed maintainer has been waiting on you to upgrade so he can package the latest upstream, I know, and all that would be required is a simple rebuild. I'd say package away, and file Important (possibly even Grave, since the package won't install) bugs against everything depending on libslang1 to let the maintainers know to rebuild. Is it possible to "Provide: libslang (1.2.99)"? (Warning: Idle speculation) -=- James Mastros -- Caveat Emptator: I am not a Developer. (But I use libslang-using binaries, if that counts for anything.)
Re: (upstream-)contrib, /usr/doc, and Depends
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 09:11:36AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > "James M. Mastros" wrote: > >/usr/doc/naim/examples is wrong because they aren't really > >examples. > That's the only place they _can_ go. I agree that we need a new > directory for such things. I'm keeping them where they are (/usr/share/naim/contrib) for now, until somebody comes up with a better place (neither bin nor doc/.../examples are better, nor is a separate package (too much overhead, too little gain)). The FHS and debian-policy seem to allow it, though I'm not too thrilled with it; it just dosn't feel right. > > 3) Do I have to depend on tclsh for one minor contrib program? > > (Policy says yes.) > Actually, Policy doesn't say that _everything_ can be expected to > work when the dependencies are met. But scripts policy requires a dependency (little d) on non-POSIX shell interpreters -- 4.4 para 2 at the end. > You might want to `suggest' depend on tclsh and mention the > requirement in your README.debian file at the same place you > mention the `example' scripts. Done. A updated packaging is available at http://rtweb.net/theorb/debian/, or will be when this blasted hunk of overweight steel builds it. It also fixes a minor upstream bug, and moves the docs and manpage (empty, as upstream; needs to be written) to /usr/share. I'm still looking for a real debian-developer to take it over until I get confirmed, which might be quite a bit as I havn't applied yet. -=- James Mastros -- Fruenlaben! -- Crazy director-man, Animanics
Re: copyright question
On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 09:09:51PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote: > Hi. Thank you for your opinion. > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > clearly the intent of the author. He might be better served by simply going > > GPL; he has most of the gist there already. > > Maybe. But I think the new one is better than the old one, isn't it ? Quite a bit better indeed. -=- James Mastros -- First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment, and by then it was too late to say anything at all." -=- Nancy Lebowitz cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/ ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Re: copyright question
On Tue, Jun 08, 1999 at 05:44:26PM -0700, Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote: > Taketoshi Sano proclaimed: > >1-a. Source distribution have all information in the original > > distribution. > >1-b. Binary distribution have the complete corresponding machine-readable > > source code to build up the working version of the software. > Many users get Debian in a binary form (because it is cheaper). How could > such a user comply with 1-b when they buy a binary only CD? 1-c is too > complex for me to even understand. They don't comply with 1-b, they comply with 1-c, which is taken from the GPL almost exactly. > Furthermore, all bits are machine-redable by nature. The bits are already > in a machine. In my eyes 1-b might be read as saying that you can ship the > binaries as long as you ship *printed* source code with it that is machine > readable. Umm, I don't see where you're getting "printed" from. "Machine-readable source code" is generaly understood to mean somthing a compiler can understand. Then again "generaly understood" and "a judge will take to mean" can be very different things. > 1-b. Binary distribution have documentation on means of obtaining source > code to build a working version of the software. This isn't what he's looking for -- this could be a slip of paper that says: "For complete source code to build a working version of this software, send a check for $20,000 and a self-addressed stamped envelope to Ty Coon." It's DFSG free, but it won't guarantee that users can get source code, which is clearly the intent of the author. He might be better served by simply going GPL; he has most of the gist there already. -=- James Mastros -- First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment, and by then it was too late to say anything at all." -=- Nancy Lebowitz cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/ ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Re: version numbers
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 01:31:52AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Another possibility is the following. Increase the epoch at this
> point to 1 (so you would have version 1:1.1), but from now on use a
> triple version number, thus: this release will be 1:1.1.0 or 1:1.1,
> the next minor upgrade will be 1:1.1.1 (and *not* 1:1.11), the next
> major release will be 1:1.2.0 and so forth.
Exactly what I meant; thank you.
-=- James Mastros
--
First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I
wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept
quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment,
and by then it was too late to say anything at all."
-=- Nancy Lebowitz
cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/
ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Re: version numbers
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 09:08:52PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Chrony-1.1 is out and I've packaged it to replace chrony-1.02 only to find > that dpkg claims that 1.1 < 1.02. What should I do? Package it as version 1:1.1; next time package as 1:2.0.2, which will give the ordering you're looking for. (The 1: is an "era"; it won't normaly get displayed. Made for just this sort of thing.) -=- James Mastros -- First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment, and by then it was too late to say anything at all." -=- Nancy Lebowitz cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/ ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
