echo+newline in postinst
Hi, I have to write a newline along with other things to a config file from postinst. I was told and discovered that echo -e '\nline' is not supported in every shell. What would be the best solution for this? I think I should use printf '\nline' as it seems to work in every shell. Is it ok, or should I use an other solution? Like '(echo; echo line) config_file'? Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug# 238314 RFS: siefs - virtual fs for accessing Siemens mobiles
* martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-10-10 17:21:55 +0200]: also sprach Mathias Weidner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.10.1706 +0200]: W: siefs source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.log W: siefs source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.status W: siefs source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.cache The mentioned files are in the upstream source and I'm uncertain whether to remove the files, ignore the warning or do something else about this. Any help is greatly appreciated. You cannot remove them from source or the orig.tar.gz won't be pristine anymore. I usually remove them from debian/rules clean: with rm -f This helps for me. I suggest fixing the upstream autotools configuration to make these files properly delete and then to send the patch upstream. This would be the best, you are right. Regards, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
echo+newline in postinst
Hi, I have to write a newline along with other things to a config file from postinst. I was told and discovered that echo -e '\nline' is not supported in every shell. What would be the best solution for this? I think I should use printf '\nline' as it seems to work in every shell. Is it ok, or should I use an other solution? Like '(echo; echo line) config_file'? Regards, Laszlo/GCS
Re: Bug# 238314 RFS: siefs - virtual fs for accessing Siemens mobiles
* martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-10-10 17:21:55 +0200]: also sprach Mathias Weidner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.10.1706 +0200]: W: siefs source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.log W: siefs source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.status W: siefs source: configure-generated-file-in-source config.cache The mentioned files are in the upstream source and I'm uncertain whether to remove the files, ignore the warning or do something else about this. Any help is greatly appreciated. You cannot remove them from source or the orig.tar.gz won't be pristine anymore. I usually remove them from debian/rules clean: with rm -f This helps for me. I suggest fixing the upstream autotools configuration to make these files properly delete and then to send the patch upstream. This would be the best, you are right. Regards, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
haydn issues/login
Hi, I have a lot of trouble reaching alioth. First I have network problems between: [...] 12 sl-bb20-par-14-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.129.65) 40.305 ms 51.128 ms 50.846 ms 13 sl-bb23-nyc-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.45) 119.830 ms 117.052 ms 143.078 ms 14 sl-bb21-nyc-8-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.7.110) 134.150 ms 140.094 ms 148.754 ms 15 sl-bb21-atl-11-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.69) 138.266 ms 132.358 ms 133.105 ms 16 sl-bb24-atl-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.12.30) 135.162 ms 138.178 ms 133.016 ms 17 sl-gw11-atl-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.12.90) 136.120 ms 130.510 ms 136.918 ms 18 sl-hp1-3-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.208.86) 136.467 ms 131.645 ms 141.218 ms 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 ftc06gwb01-p7-1.core.hp.net (16.96.58.13) 200.523 ms 194.674 ms 191.562 ms 22 * * * 23 haydn.debian.org (192.25.206.28) 196.238 ms 201.042 ms 190.729 ms Also, when I tried to login on the main page, I get two error messages: Alioth Could Not Connect to Database: -- or -- An error occured in the logger. no connection to the server When I am very-very lucky I can fetch the web login page, and login; still if I try to commit my changes to the svn repository hosted on alioth I still can not log in. It is strange as well, as I have my RSA public key on alioth, so it should not ask for my password, which is not accepted. So I see in the ssh debug log: [...] debug1: Host 'shell.alioth.debian.org' is known and matches the RSA host key. debug1: Found key in /home/gcs/.ssh/known_hosts:11 debug1: ssh_rsa_verify: signature correct debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS sent debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS received debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_REQUEST sent debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT received debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password,keyboard-interactive debug1: Next authentication method: publickey debug1: Trying private key: /home/gcs/.ssh/id_rsa debug1: read PEM private key done: type RSA debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password,keyboard-interactive debug1: Next authentication method: keyboard-interactive [...] So my /home/gcs/.ssh/id_rsa key read, but not accepted by alioth. Is it known, my fault, or what can cause this? My key was working previously, so I do not know why it shouldn't work now. Thanks for any pointers, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
haydn issues/login
Hi, I have a lot of trouble reaching alioth. First I have network problems between: [...] 12 sl-bb20-par-14-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.129.65) 40.305 ms 51.128 ms 50.846 ms 13 sl-bb23-nyc-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.45) 119.830 ms 117.052 ms 143.078 ms 14 sl-bb21-nyc-8-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.7.110) 134.150 ms 140.094 ms 148.754 ms 15 sl-bb21-atl-11-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.69) 138.266 ms 132.358 ms 133.105 ms 16 sl-bb24-atl-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.12.30) 135.162 ms 138.178 ms 133.016 ms 17 sl-gw11-atl-10-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.12.90) 136.120 ms 130.510 ms 136.918 ms 18 sl-hp1-3-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.208.86) 136.467 ms 131.645 ms 141.218 ms 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 ftc06gwb01-p7-1.core.hp.net (16.96.58.13) 200.523 ms 194.674 ms 191.562 ms 22 * * * 23 haydn.debian.org (192.25.206.28) 196.238 ms 201.042 ms 190.729 ms Also, when I tried to login on the main page, I get two error messages: Alioth Could Not Connect to Database: -- or -- An error occured in the logger. no connection to the server When I am very-very lucky I can fetch the web login page, and login; still if I try to commit my changes to the svn repository hosted on alioth I still can not log in. It is strange as well, as I have my RSA public key on alioth, so it should not ask for my password, which is not accepted. So I see in the ssh debug log: [...] debug1: Host 'shell.alioth.debian.org' is known and matches the RSA host key. debug1: Found key in /home/gcs/.ssh/known_hosts:11 debug1: ssh_rsa_verify: signature correct debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS sent debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS received debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_REQUEST sent debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT received debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password,keyboard-interactive debug1: Next authentication method: publickey debug1: Trying private key: /home/gcs/.ssh/id_rsa debug1: read PEM private key done: type RSA debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password,keyboard-interactive debug1: Next authentication method: keyboard-interactive [...] So my /home/gcs/.ssh/id_rsa key read, but not accepted by alioth. Is it known, my fault, or what can cause this? My key was working previously, so I do not know why it shouldn't work now. Thanks for any pointers, Laszlo/GCS
Re: How to get rid of an epoch?
* Chris Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-27 17:02:43 -0400]: If I recall correctly, an epoch cannot be removed or else people with the epoch packages will never have a sane upgrade path. Exactly. Someone has only one chance: upstream reasons; they change name, so package name has to be changed as well and thus epoch can be forgotten. - Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How to get rid of an epoch?
* Chris Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-27 17:02:43 -0400]: If I recall correctly, an epoch cannot be removed or else people with the epoch packages will never have a sane upgrade path. Exactly. Someone has only one chance: upstream reasons; they change name, so package name has to be changed as well and thus epoch can be forgotten. - Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC: crasm
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-24 13:17:10 +1000]: On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 02:54:27PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: [1] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/crasm/ debian/copyright is missing the following line [6][7]: Copyright (c) 1987 Leon Bottou The description in debian/control doesn't mention the upstream homepage [8][9]. [6] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.html [7] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg00194.html [8] http://people.debian.org/~walters/descriptions.html [9] http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-upstream-info Thanks, fixed. Regards, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: sidplay-libs, sidplay
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-24 12:13:26 +1000]: On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:25:36AM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/ sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz doesn't exist: --11:25:54-- http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz = `sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz' Resolving mentors.debian.net... 212.12.58.102 Connecting to mentors.debian.net[212.12.58.102]:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 11:25:55 ERROR 404: Not Found. Exactly; if there's no change in the upstream version (like this case), then it is not uploaded again. I know this is a little bug as mentors.debian.net does not host the whole Debian tree, but dupload does not know it. So, as sidplay-libs 2.1.0-2 is in the archive, and I have done only -3 and -4, dupload uploaded only the diff. It is a feature. Please fetch the sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz from your Debian mirror. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay/ Output from running pbuilder on the source package: ... Obtaining the cached apt archive contents Installing the build-deps - Attempting to parse the build-deps : pbuilder-satisfydepends,v 1.18 2003/04/20 03:40:36 dancer Exp $ - Considering debhelper (= 3.0.0) - Trying debhelper - Considering libsidplay2-dev (= 2.1.0-4) Tried versions: 2.1.0-2 - Does not satisfy version, not trying E: Could not satisfy build-dependency. E: pbuilder-satisfydepends failed. See above. Please build sidplay-libs first. Regards, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFH: strange message after package upload
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-24 12:46:32 +1000]: On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:43:08AM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: Check the list of binary packages of sidplay-libs at: http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sidplay-libs.html and you will see libresid-dev listed there. Yes, but what does warning mean, when libresid-dev already exists? Why that said a new binary package? OK, my sponsor had some problems uploading it, somehow gnupg produced bad signature for him, then dsc changed on his next upload, so the md5sum was not correct, etc. All in all uploding sidplay-libs 2.1.0-3 failed. Which is a package you are taking over from ivo. Yes, and? It should not generate that warning. Sorry for the noise. No problem, I am just curious why the uploading failed. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC: crasm
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-24 13:17:10 +1000]: On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 02:54:27PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: [1] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/crasm/ debian/copyright is missing the following line [6][7]: Copyright (c) 1987 Leon Bottou The description in debian/control doesn't mention the upstream homepage [8][9]. [6] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg7.html [7] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg00194.html [8] http://people.debian.org/~walters/descriptions.html [9] http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-upstream-info Thanks, fixed. Regards, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: library packaging problem
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-23 18:16:20 +0200]: Could anyone give me a hint where I have to look to find my (certainly trivial) error? Can we look into the package's source? Without checking we have a hard time guessing. Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: sidplay-libs, sidplay
Hi Mentors, David, I am looking for a sponsor for sidplay-libs and sidplay, both available from mentors.debian.net[1][2]. Both needed to play Commodore C64 music files (.sid) on Linux. As sidplay-libs fixes a FTBFS bug, I would be very thankful if someone can look into it and upload soon. Please build the package to include the changes from 2.1.0-3 (ie with debuild -v2.1.0-2), as it was uploaded, but not processed because my previous sponsor (Algernon, on holiday now) had several problems ranging from bad gpg signature on .changes to strange warning messages. Thanks in advance, Laszlo/GCS [1] deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free [2] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/ http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sponsor for a new package
* Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-23 20:16:34 -0300]: There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. DFSG[1]: 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. Regards, Laszlo/GCS [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: sidplay-libs, sidplay
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-24 12:13:26 +1000]: On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:25:36AM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/ sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz doesn't exist: --11:25:54-- http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz = `sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz' Resolving mentors.debian.net... 212.12.58.102 Connecting to mentors.debian.net[212.12.58.102]:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 11:25:55 ERROR 404: Not Found. Exactly; if there's no change in the upstream version (like this case), then it is not uploaded again. I know this is a little bug as mentors.debian.net does not host the whole Debian tree, but dupload does not know it. So, as sidplay-libs 2.1.0-2 is in the archive, and I have done only -3 and -4, dupload uploaded only the diff. It is a feature. Please fetch the sidplay-libs_2.1.0.orig.tar.gz from your Debian mirror. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay/ Output from running pbuilder on the source package: ... Obtaining the cached apt archive contents Installing the build-deps - Attempting to parse the build-deps : pbuilder-satisfydepends,v 1.18 2003/04/20 03:40:36 dancer Exp $ - Considering debhelper (= 3.0.0) - Trying debhelper - Considering libsidplay2-dev (= 2.1.0-4) Tried versions: 2.1.0-2 - Does not satisfy version, not trying E: Could not satisfy build-dependency. E: pbuilder-satisfydepends failed. See above. Please build sidplay-libs first. Regards, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFH: strange message after package upload
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-24 12:46:32 +1000]: On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:43:08AM +1000, Anbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: Check the list of binary packages of sidplay-libs at: http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sidplay-libs.html and you will see libresid-dev listed there. Yes, but what does warning mean, when libresid-dev already exists? Why that said a new binary package? OK, my sponsor had some problems uploading it, somehow gnupg produced bad signature for him, then dsc changed on his next upload, so the md5sum was not correct, etc. All in all uploding sidplay-libs 2.1.0-3 failed. Which is a package you are taking over from ivo. Yes, and? It should not generate that warning. Sorry for the noise. No problem, I am just curious why the uploading failed. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: library packaging problem
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-23 18:16:20 +0200]: Could anyone give me a hint where I have to look to find my (certainly trivial) error? Can we look into the package's source? Without checking we have a hard time guessing. Regards, Laszlo/GCS
RFS: sidplay-libs, sidplay
Hi Mentors, David, I am looking for a sponsor for sidplay-libs and sidplay, both available from mentors.debian.net[1][2]. Both needed to play Commodore C64 music files (.sid) on Linux. As sidplay-libs fixes a FTBFS bug, I would be very thankful if someone can look into it and upload soon. Please build the package to include the changes from 2.1.0-3 (ie with debuild -v2.1.0-2), as it was uploaded, but not processed because my previous sponsor (Algernon, on holiday now) had several problems ranging from bad gpg signature on .changes to strange warning messages. Thanks in advance, Laszlo/GCS [1] deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free [2] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay-libs/ http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/sidplay/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sponsor for a new package
* Nelson A. de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-23 20:16:34 -0300]: There is no license for the program, but talking with the auhtor, he allows the inclusion of the program on Debian. DFSG[1]: 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. Regards, Laszlo/GCS [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html
RFD: take over packages
Hi, I was writing to Ivo Timmermans[1] that I would like to continue with some of his packages, as he has not updated them for a while. They are music players (mean: binary, libs) for C64 music formats, ie: SID emulator. He said it is OK for him, but when I have updated the packages, fixed bugs, uploaded to mentors.debian.net, I have lost contact with him. In this scenario, given the facts that Sarge is coming, and I have fixed FTBFS bugs with gcc 3.4, would it be a good reason to ask an other DD to upload the packages? I do not want to hijack them, but I don't want to sit tight and just see that the packages are not fixed for Sarge. :( What do mentors think about this? Thanks, Laszlo/GCS [1] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFD: take over packages
* Jay Berkenbilt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-22 09:54:58 -0400]: If Ivo gave you explicit permission to do this and isn't responding, you are within your right to ask someone else to sponsor the uploads, Thanks, I did this meanwhile. but you should keep Ivo in the loop. Well, my sponsor just asked me not to bother him (don't know why really, but my sponsor says he knows Ivo a bit, and the previous permission is sufficient, so probably no one will bother). [...] but I have done this specifically with packages maintained by Ivo and in my experience, although unresponsive at times, he is supportive and good to work with. XML related packages? :) Thanks Jay. Regards, Laszlo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFH: strange message after package upload
Hi, My sponsor uploaded sidplay related packages for me. It was like before with other packages: I get a message that the upload was ok, then that it was accepted. However for two binary packages I get this snippshet: -- snip -- (new) libresid-dev_2.1.0-3_i386.deb optional devel WARNING: Already present in main distribution. -- snip -- What does it mean, and how can I fix it? The package already contained this binary package, so it is definiately not new. I have triple checked that the distribution name is ok: unstable; also it does not happen with all the binary packages from that source, only with two of them. Thanks for any hints in advance, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xpat2 testing excuses
* Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-21 16:01:53 +0200]: It has been fixed, but the information on p.qa.d.o is delayed by a day, I waited more then, but it seems p.qa.d.o is still not updated. xpat2 has successfully propagated to testing: http://packages.debian.org/xpat2 I look for a broader number of packages, so p.qa.d.o would be good to get back fully. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFD: take over packages
* Jay Berkenbilt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-22 09:54:58 -0400]: If Ivo gave you explicit permission to do this and isn't responding, you are within your right to ask someone else to sponsor the uploads, Thanks, I did this meanwhile. but you should keep Ivo in the loop. Well, my sponsor just asked me not to bother him (don't know why really, but my sponsor says he knows Ivo a bit, and the previous permission is sufficient, so probably no one will bother). [...] but I have done this specifically with packages maintained by Ivo and in my experience, although unresponsive at times, he is supportive and good to work with. XML related packages? :) Thanks Jay. Regards, Laszlo
RFH: strange message after package upload
Hi, My sponsor uploaded sidplay related packages for me. It was like before with other packages: I get a message that the upload was ok, then that it was accepted. However for two binary packages I get this snippshet: -- snip -- (new) libresid-dev_2.1.0-3_i386.deb optional devel WARNING: Already present in main distribution. -- snip -- What does it mean, and how can I fix it? The package already contained this binary package, so it is definiately not new. I have triple checked that the distribution name is ok: unstable; also it does not happen with all the binary packages from that source, only with two of them. Thanks for any hints in advance, Laszlo/GCS
Re: xpat2 testing excuses
* Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-21 16:01:53 +0200]: It has been fixed, but the information on p.qa.d.o is delayed by a day, I waited more then, but it seems p.qa.d.o is still not updated. xpat2 has successfully propagated to testing: http://packages.debian.org/xpat2 I look for a broader number of packages, so p.qa.d.o would be good to get back fully. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS
Re: xpat2 testing excuses
* Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-18 16:54:27 +0200]: The testing scripts did not run succesfully tonight. Any expected date when they will be fixed? It seems they are still broken, at least I do not see packages.qa.debian.org updating. Regards, Laszlo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFC: crasm
Hi, I am looking for comments, if my package is correct. Some basic information: * Package name: crasm Version : 1.3 Upstream Author : Leon Bottou * URL : http://crasm.sourceforge.net/crasm.html * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.) Description : Cross assembler for 6800/6801/6803/6502/65C02/Z80 Assemble a microprocessor program and produce output file in Intel HEX or Motorola S Code from source for 6800/6801/6803/6502/65C02/Z80 processors. A program listing and a symbol table are also produced on the standard output. Available from mentors.debian.net[1]. Thanks in advance, Laszlo/GCS [1] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/crasm/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xpat2 testing excuses
* Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-18 16:54:27 +0200]: The testing scripts did not run succesfully tonight. Any expected date when they will be fixed? It seems they are still broken, at least I do not see packages.qa.debian.org updating. Regards, Laszlo
RFC: crasm
Hi, I am looking for comments, if my package is correct. Some basic information: * Package name: crasm Version : 1.3 Upstream Author : Leon Bottou * URL : http://crasm.sourceforge.net/crasm.html * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.) Description : Cross assembler for 6800/6801/6803/6502/65C02/Z80 Assemble a microprocessor program and produce output file in Intel HEX or Motorola S Code from source for 6800/6801/6803/6502/65C02/Z80 processors. A program listing and a symbol table are also produced on the standard output. Available from mentors.debian.net[1]. Thanks in advance, Laszlo/GCS [1] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/crasm/
Re: working with Debian subversion sources
* Faheem Mitha [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-17 01:12:46 +]: I've been trying to package subversion, version 1.1.0-rc2, I think David already started with it, as we got a request for the package. But please note two things: we short of postponed it, as it won't make into Sarge and David is moving back to the US of A so he does not have an internet access for some weeks. It doesn't look like David Kimdon is using svn-buildpackage. He does not as far as I know. Apparently not, after all. I see that the orig tarball is a tarball within a tarball. I guess that answers one of my questions. :-) I am still not sure why it is done that way, though. Simple: Subversion contains a copy of Neon and libapr0, and at least Neon is not DFSG free and as libapr0 is pulled from the Apache2 package, both are _removed_ for copyright reasons, or not to crush with the Apache2 libapr0. Regards, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: working with Debian subversion sources
* Faheem Mitha [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-17 01:12:46 +]: I've been trying to package subversion, version 1.1.0-rc2, I think David already started with it, as we got a request for the package. But please note two things: we short of postponed it, as it won't make into Sarge and David is moving back to the US of A so he does not have an internet access for some weeks. It doesn't look like David Kimdon is using svn-buildpackage. He does not as far as I know. Apparently not, after all. I see that the orig tarball is a tarball within a tarball. I guess that answers one of my questions. :-) I am still not sure why it is done that way, though. Simple: Subversion contains a copy of Neon and libapr0, and at least Neon is not DFSG free and as libapr0 is pulled from the Apache2 package, both are _removed_ for copyright reasons, or not to crush with the Apache2 libapr0. Regards, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RFH: gradm2
Hi, I can not reach my sponsor for a while now, who is Martin F. Krafft. Can someone help me out instead, and look up gradm2 package for me? It was newly uploaded last month, and more than two weeks passed since then, but no sign if it is accepted or rejected. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- BorsodChem Joint-Stock Company Linux Support Center Software engineer Developer +36-48-511211/12-99 +36-20-4441745 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFH: gradm2
Hi, I can not reach my sponsor for a while now, who is Martin F. Krafft. Can someone help me out instead, and look up gradm2 package for me? It was newly uploaded last month, and more than two weeks passed since then, but no sign if it is accepted or rejected. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- BorsodChem Joint-Stock Company Linux Support Center Software engineer Developer +36-48-511211/12-99 +36-20-4441745
Re: Problem with zombie directory created on package install
* Marcin Orlowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-09 10:23:58 +0200]: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/ Please make the source available as well. [...], however when you list /usr/share/apps/ksplash/Themes/ you would see that among Nouvola there's empty nouvola directory created as well. It's part of the .deb . I am recently unable to find out the reason it appears here. Any suggestions what did I do wrong? Bad shots: you have listed it in debian/dirs or the install target creates it. More if you make the source available. Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with zombie directory created on package install
* Marcin Orlowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-09 10:23:58 +0200]: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/k/ Please make the source available as well. [...], however when you list /usr/share/apps/ksplash/Themes/ you would see that among Nouvola there's empty nouvola directory created as well. It's part of the .deb . I am recently unable to find out the reason it appears here. Any suggestions what did I do wrong? Bad shots: you have listed it in debian/dirs or the install target creates it. More if you make the source available. Laszlo/GCS
Re: Tux Commander Borland Kylix
* elijah wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-05 22:19:07 -0500]: is there any chance that the software could be ported to compile with one of the free pascal compilers? several of those seem quite featureful on debian. No, it uses Kylix components as well, not present in free tools ofcourse. I have already tried it to package it for Debian. It seems to be a no-go. a lot of the problems you will face with this are problems that java folks (prior to the recent availability of high-quality free JVMs) have faced in debian. Exactly. Maybe even harder. Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
how buildd's work?
Hi, I contributed a very small amount to the subversion package. What I see from packages.qa.debian.org is that building it on alpha and other archs are failed as the newest apache2 cause trouble with the dependencies. The problem is that apache2 has an arch=all part, and arch=any ones as well; the arch=all part installed for the subversion dependency, but the arch=any parts are not available. Looking into apache2 build logs, I see on alpha and other archs it is not even tried to build. How that can happen if apache2 uploaded a day earlier than subversion, however apache2 is not even tried to build, but subversion is tried? If I would be a Debian Developer, what I could do to resolve such situations (I mean for example to force the apache2 build)? Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tux Commander Borland Kylix
* elijah wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-05 22:19:07 -0500]: is there any chance that the software could be ported to compile with one of the free pascal compilers? several of those seem quite featureful on debian. No, it uses Kylix components as well, not present in free tools ofcourse. I have already tried it to package it for Debian. It seems to be a no-go. a lot of the problems you will face with this are problems that java folks (prior to the recent availability of high-quality free JVMs) have faced in debian. Exactly. Maybe even harder. Laszlo/GCS
how buildd's work?
Hi, I contributed a very small amount to the subversion package. What I see from packages.qa.debian.org is that building it on alpha and other archs are failed as the newest apache2 cause trouble with the dependencies. The problem is that apache2 has an arch=all part, and arch=any ones as well; the arch=all part installed for the subversion dependency, but the arch=any parts are not available. Looking into apache2 build logs, I see on alpha and other archs it is not even tried to build. How that can happen if apache2 uploaded a day earlier than subversion, however apache2 is not even tried to build, but subversion is tried? If I would be a Debian Developer, what I could do to resolve such situations (I mean for example to force the apache2 build)? Thanks, Laszlo/GCS
security fix dependency
Dear Mentors, I have a seemingly stupid question. Say I am not a DD yet, and has a security bug in a package I help maintaining. Upstream fixed it, so the package is ready, but upstream requires new library version from a dependency than the current Debian version. Asked the library maintainer recently to upgrade his package, but no answer yet. As the lib is small, and it's new upstream version contains only bugfixes, I have packaged it, based on the original maintainer's package. My questions: - would it be wise to upload the lib to a delayed queue and note the maintainer or not? - how should I change the version numbering? If I use the new upstream version, then lintian correctly see that as I am not in the Uploaders field, the packaging is an NMU but with wrong version number... Thanks, Laszlo/GCS
security fix dependency
Dear Mentors, I have a seemingly stupid question. Say I am not a DD yet, and has a security bug in a package I help maintaining. Upstream fixed it, so the package is ready, but upstream requires new library version from a dependency than the current Debian version. Asked the library maintainer recently to upgrade his package, but no answer yet. As the lib is small, and it's new upstream version contains only bugfixes, I have packaged it, based on the original maintainer's package. My questions: - would it be wise to upload the lib to a delayed queue and note the maintainer or not? - how should I change the version numbering? If I use the new upstream version, then lintian correctly see that as I am not in the Uploaders field, the packaging is an NMU but with wrong version number... Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
packages.qa.d.o bug?
Hi, I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the package four days ago. Still, Testing Status shows the previous package: * 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate etc. Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general' bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- BorsodChem Joint-Stock Company Linux Support Center Software engineer Developer +36-48-511211/12-99 +36-20-4441745
Re: packages.qa.d.o bug?
Hi Jay, * Jay Berkenbilt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-23 11:46:45 -0400]: I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the package four days ago. Still, Testing Status shows the previous package: * 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate etc. Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general' bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant. In your package status package: http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cvs2svn.html You'll see, under Problems, that the package has not entered testing even though the 10-day delay is over. Click on Check why there to see the reasons. http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=cvs2svn You'll see that this is blocked by subversion which in turn is blocked by perl. Lots of things are blocked by perl, but there appears to be active effort in resolving that issue. I am appreciate your answer, and I know this. But please read my question: the problem is not that my package is not entered testing because it is blocked by perl at the end; the problem is that p.q.d.o still shows version 0.0.1173 in Testing Status, and not see the new, 0.1263 version. It should show * 4 days old (needs 10 days); * Too young, not considered. as 0.1263 was uploaded on 2004-07-19. Regards, Laszlo/GCS
Re: Python package status
* Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-21 01:45:58 +0200]:
There is a python policy that you should probably read.
Thanks. I have checked at http://www.debian.org/devel/ , but I could
not find that there. But after searching around, I found
http://people.debian.org/~joss/python/python-policy-draft.html/ and
/usr/share/doc/python/python-policy.txt.gz . How finalized is it? I see
it is last updated in 2003; will it appear on the official Debian pages?
which means a Depends: python (= 2.1) is probably all you need.
That was I looking for, thanks again. Also, now I install package
modules under /usr/lib/site-python instead of
/usr/local/lib/python${PYTHON_VER}/site-packages .
Regards,
Laszlo/GCS
packages.qa.d.o bug?
Hi, I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the package four days ago. Still, Testing Status shows the previous package: * 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate etc. Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general' bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- BorsodChem Joint-Stock Company Linux Support Center Software engineer Developer +36-48-511211/12-99 +36-20-4441745 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages.qa.d.o bug?
Hi Jay, * Jay Berkenbilt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-23 11:46:45 -0400]: I maintain cvs2svn, and my sponsor uploaded a new version of the package four days ago. Still, Testing Status shows the previous package: * 21 days old (needed 10 days); * Valid candidate etc. Is this known, or should I file a bugreport? Skimming over 'general' bugs in BTS does not show anything relevant. In your package status package: http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cvs2svn.html You'll see, under Problems, that the package has not entered testing even though the 10-day delay is over. Click on Check why there to see the reasons. http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=cvs2svn You'll see that this is blocked by subversion which in turn is blocked by perl. Lots of things are blocked by perl, but there appears to be active effort in resolving that issue. I am appreciate your answer, and I know this. But please read my question: the problem is not that my package is not entered testing because it is blocked by perl at the end; the problem is that p.q.d.o still shows version 0.0.1173 in Testing Status, and not see the new, 0.1263 version. It should show * 4 days old (needs 10 days); * Too young, not considered. as 0.1263 was uploaded on 2004-07-19. Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Python package status
* Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-21 01:45:58 +0200]:
There is a python policy that you should probably read.
Thanks. I have checked at http://www.debian.org/devel/ , but I could
not find that there. But after searching around, I found
http://people.debian.org/~joss/python/python-policy-draft.html/ and
/usr/share/doc/python/python-policy.txt.gz . How finalized is it? I see
it is last updated in 2003; will it appear on the official Debian pages?
which means a Depends: python (= 2.1) is probably all you need.
That was I looking for, thanks again. Also, now I install package
modules under /usr/lib/site-python instead of
/usr/local/lib/python${PYTHON_VER}/site-packages .
Regards,
Laszlo/GCS
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Python package status
Dear Mentors, I would like to ask advice with Python. I have a package, which depends on it, and previously I depended on an exact version (2.3) thus altered the interpreter in each file to be python2.3 instead of generic python. It worked, but upstream put extra effort into that it should work with Python 2.0.0 or greater, thus I would like to change my package. As I see, python1.5 already removed from the archive, but I have the following questions: - can it be that python1.5 still lying around on older installations, thus /usr/bin/python may point to it? - would it be good to depend only on python, without versioning, as python1.5 is gone, or as the previous question implies python1.5 may be around, so I should conflict with it? The root of my problems is that I don't see newer Python packages to conflict and replace the old Python, hence my email. Thanks in advance for any pointers, Laszlo/GCS
Python package status
Dear Mentors, I would like to ask advice with Python. I have a package, which depends on it, and previously I depended on an exact version (2.3) thus altered the interpreter in each file to be python2.3 instead of generic python. It worked, but upstream put extra effort into that it should work with Python 2.0.0 or greater, thus I would like to change my package. As I see, python1.5 already removed from the archive, but I have the following questions: - can it be that python1.5 still lying around on older installations, thus /usr/bin/python may point to it? - would it be good to depend only on python, without versioning, as python1.5 is gone, or as the previous question implies python1.5 may be around, so I should conflict with it? The root of my problems is that I don't see newer Python packages to conflict and replace the old Python, hence my email. Thanks in advance for any pointers, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for Mentor
* Joshua Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-19 18:22:29 -0700]: The debian packages and files can be found here: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~bjosh/ Just fetched. I know they aren't perfect, but its the first one I've done, so I'd like to have some help! There are some mistakes: first, please try to split off the source; name the 'upstream' source _only_ to ncview_1.92e.orig.tar.gz and let debuild or anything else you use to build your package to generate a diff for it. Also, building fails right off at the configure: checking for /root/src/netcdf/netcdf-3.4/src/libsrc/netcdf.h... no Error: I cannot find the directory that holds the netcdf include file netcdf.h! Please remove debian/ncview.doc-base.EX (example file, and you don't use it), debian/README.Debian (it's empty, useless). Looking into the source, I see you directly program X11, but you don't have any build dependencies on it in debian/control (do you need interface/x_interface.orig.c btw?). Please remove the unused (commented out lines) from debian/rules Please fix debian/copyright , if there's only one upstream author, then you don't need the (s) at the end, a pointer to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL would be good, etc. Please look into other packages' copyright file (someone have a good link how a copyright file should like, please speak up). I think we can help you more if you fixed these. For additional help, please see: http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ Regards, Laszlo/GCS
Re: I need sponsor for bif3
* Sergio Cayuqueo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-19 22:51:21 -0300]: deb http://bif.lunix.com.ar/deb/ ./ http://bif.lunix.com.ar/deb/bif3_0.3.11_all.deb the original (orig) tgz file is http://bif.lunix.com.ar/tgz/bif3-0.3.11.tgz Your package fails for the first look. :( Please split out the source to clean upstream source .tar.gz and a diff.gz which contains the additional changes (debian/ subdir, etc). For a help on this, you can find information in these documents: http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ Regards, Laszlo
Re: Looking for Mentor
* Joshua Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-19 18:22:29 -0700]: The debian packages and files can be found here: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~bjosh/ Just fetched. I know they aren't perfect, but its the first one I've done, so I'd like to have some help! There are some mistakes: first, please try to split off the source; name the 'upstream' source _only_ to ncview_1.92e.orig.tar.gz and let debuild or anything else you use to build your package to generate a diff for it. Also, building fails right off at the configure: checking for /root/src/netcdf/netcdf-3.4/src/libsrc/netcdf.h... no Error: I cannot find the directory that holds the netcdf include file netcdf.h! Please remove debian/ncview.doc-base.EX (example file, and you don't use it), debian/README.Debian (it's empty, useless). Looking into the source, I see you directly program X11, but you don't have any build dependencies on it in debian/control (do you need interface/x_interface.orig.c btw?). Please remove the unused (commented out lines) from debian/rules Please fix debian/copyright , if there's only one upstream author, then you don't need the (s) at the end, a pointer to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL would be good, etc. Please look into other packages' copyright file (someone have a good link how a copyright file should like, please speak up). I think we can help you more if you fixed these. For additional help, please see: http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I need sponsor for bif3
* Sergio Cayuqueo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-19 22:51:21 -0300]: deb http://bif.lunix.com.ar/deb/ ./ http://bif.lunix.com.ar/deb/bif3_0.3.11_all.deb the original (orig) tgz file is http://bif.lunix.com.ar/tgz/bif3-0.3.11.tgz Your package fails for the first look. :( Please split out the source to clean upstream source .tar.gz and a diff.gz which contains the additional changes (debian/ subdir, etc). For a help on this, you can find information in these documents: http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ Regards, Laszlo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dh_installman
* Kai Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-08 13:00:32 +0300]: But that makes the diff huge and it looks horrible. I was hoping diff could spot a rename, obviously not. It won't as you experienced. So I need to nice way to feed: dh_installman doc/fr/man/zoneserver.fr.8 Although the actual file is: doc/fr/man/zoneserver.8 Do an 'install' on the manpage, directly to the package directory (debian/tmp or debian/maradns whatever do you use). Btw I have informed upstream That's good. Cheers, Laszlo/GCS
Re: dh_installman
* Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-08 15:32:22 +0200]: On 2004-07-08 Kai Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So I need to nice way to feed: dh_installman doc/fr/man/zoneserver.fr.8 Although the actual file is: doc/fr/man/zoneserver.8 The file is doc/fr/man/zoneserver.8 in the tarball and you want it to be installed into the correct location, i.e. /usr/share/man/fr/man8/zoneserver.8? Not exactly he wants doc/fr/man/zoneserver.8 to be installed as zoneserver.fr.8 (notice the added 'fr' tag in the filename). Cheers, Laszlo/GCS
Re: dh_installman
* Kai Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-08 13:00:32 +0300]: But that makes the diff huge and it looks horrible. I was hoping diff could spot a rename, obviously not. It won't as you experienced. So I need to nice way to feed: dh_installman doc/fr/man/zoneserver.fr.8 Although the actual file is: doc/fr/man/zoneserver.8 Do an 'install' on the manpage, directly to the package directory (debian/tmp or debian/maradns whatever do you use). Btw I have informed upstream That's good. Cheers, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dh_installman
* Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-08 15:32:22 +0200]: On 2004-07-08 Kai Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So I need to nice way to feed: dh_installman doc/fr/man/zoneserver.fr.8 Although the actual file is: doc/fr/man/zoneserver.8 The file is doc/fr/man/zoneserver.8 in the tarball and you want it to be installed into the correct location, i.e. /usr/share/man/fr/man8/zoneserver.8? Not exactly he wants doc/fr/man/zoneserver.8 to be installed as zoneserver.fr.8 (notice the added 'fr' tag in the filename). Cheers, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: device creation for udev
* Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-04 08:39:59 +0200]: On 2004-07-04 Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of my packages require a device to be crated for functioning. It is ok if the user has a normal /dev/, but how should I handle the udev case? I can detect it, no problem; still I am looking forward for documentation how should I achieve this with udev and/or examples how other packages do it. Can someone help me out here? The MAKEDEV currently in sarge (2.3.1-70) handles this automatically, you just invoke /sbin/MAKEDEV and it does the right thing. Thanks Andreas. But how can I specify major and minor numbers? As I know and seems MAKEDEV supports only a list of devices it knows. As my device entry would be specific, I get: /sbin/MAKEDEV: don't know how to make device grsec It should have 1,10 ad be char oriented. In the normal case I use mknod, but that's fail for udev between reboots. PS: example for manual checking in cdrecord. I see you use /dev/MAKEDEV instead of /sbin/MAKEDEV ; I do not get it, at least on my system /dev/MAKEDEV is a symlink to the latter. Thanks anyway, Laszlo/GCS
Re: device creation for udev
* Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-04 12:12:27 +0200]: Thanks Andreas. But how can I specify major and minor numbers? As I know and seems MAKEDEV supports only a list of devices it knows. As my device entry would be specific, I get: /sbin/MAKEDEV: don't know how to make device grsec Afaict getting MAKEDEV fixed is the proper course of action, because you must use it. (policy 10.6) Got it. Will fix MAKEDEV and submit a feature request on it. If you need tomanually generate the device node even when using udev there is a bug somewhere, either in udev or in the kernel-patch. It is a missing feature only, the grsec device is very uncommon, and only gradm2 and kernel-patch-grsecurity2 packages will need it. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS
Re: device creation for udev
* Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-04 08:39:59 +0200]: On 2004-07-04 Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of my packages require a device to be crated for functioning. It is ok if the user has a normal /dev/, but how should I handle the udev case? I can detect it, no problem; still I am looking forward for documentation how should I achieve this with udev and/or examples how other packages do it. Can someone help me out here? The MAKEDEV currently in sarge (2.3.1-70) handles this automatically, you just invoke /sbin/MAKEDEV and it does the right thing. Thanks Andreas. But how can I specify major and minor numbers? As I know and seems MAKEDEV supports only a list of devices it knows. As my device entry would be specific, I get: /sbin/MAKEDEV: don't know how to make device grsec It should have 1,10 ad be char oriented. In the normal case I use mknod, but that's fail for udev between reboots. PS: example for manual checking in cdrecord. I see you use /dev/MAKEDEV instead of /sbin/MAKEDEV ; I do not get it, at least on my system /dev/MAKEDEV is a symlink to the latter. Thanks anyway, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: device creation for udev
* Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-04 12:12:27 +0200]: Thanks Andreas. But how can I specify major and minor numbers? As I know and seems MAKEDEV supports only a list of devices it knows. As my device entry would be specific, I get: /sbin/MAKEDEV: don't know how to make device grsec Afaict getting MAKEDEV fixed is the proper course of action, because you must use it. (policy 10.6) Got it. Will fix MAKEDEV and submit a feature request on it. If you need tomanually generate the device node even when using udev there is a bug somewhere, either in udev or in the kernel-patch. It is a missing feature only, the grsec device is very uncommon, and only gradm2 and kernel-patch-grsecurity2 packages will need it. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
device creation for udev
Hi, One of my packages require a device to be crated for functioning. It is ok if the user has a normal /dev/, but how should I handle the udev case? I can detect it, no problem; still I am looking forward for documentation how should I achieve this with udev and/or examples how other packages do it. Can someone help me out here? Thanks, Laszlo/GCS
device creation for udev
Hi, One of my packages require a device to be crated for functioning. It is ok if the user has a normal /dev/, but how should I handle the udev case? I can detect it, no problem; still I am looking forward for documentation how should I achieve this with udev and/or examples how other packages do it. Can someone help me out here? Thanks, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: cc65 - Cross development suite for 65xxx processors
* Geert Stappers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-01 13:58:04 +0200]: That is a solid RFS! I still didn't made time to check it out and will not able the next few days. Try to find a sponsor at Debian mailinglist that have interrest in other architectures and/or embedded application. This posting is only to get attention for the package it's deserves. Actually it is already on my 'keep-an-eye-on-this' list; so if I would be a Debian Developer already (~three more months from now), then I would sponsor it. :-| So if no one volunteers until then, my first move will be to sponsor this package. _Seriously_. Regards, Laszlo/GCS
Re: sponsor wanted for 'ketchup' package
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-01 00:57:22 -0500]: Maybe kernel-package? Exactly. That's the best place for it IMHO. Umm , I missed the beginnihg of this thread. What does ketchup do? Fetch the latest kernel version based on the user's choice (stable, -pre, -mm), compiles and install it as far as I remember correctly. Regards, Laszlo/GCS
Re: RFS: cc65 - Cross development suite for 65xxx processors
* Geert Stappers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-01 13:58:04 +0200]: That is a solid RFS! I still didn't made time to check it out and will not able the next few days. Try to find a sponsor at Debian mailinglist that have interrest in other architectures and/or embedded application. This posting is only to get attention for the package it's deserves. Actually it is already on my 'keep-an-eye-on-this' list; so if I would be a Debian Developer already (~three more months from now), then I would sponsor it. :-| So if no one volunteers until then, my first move will be to sponsor this package. _Seriously_. Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sponsor wanted for 'ketchup' package
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-01 00:57:22 -0500]: Maybe kernel-package? Exactly. That's the best place for it IMHO. Umm , I missed the beginnihg of this thread. What does ketchup do? Fetch the latest kernel version based on the user's choice (stable, -pre, -mm), compiles and install it as far as I remember correctly. Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sponsor wanted for 'ketchup' package
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 22:21:14 +1000]:
I don't think you should create a debian package for small script, IMO.
Agree. Even if I don't know where it should go, but definiately finding
a backage which would include ketchup sounds a better idea.
I would like to get hold of your ketchup_0.7.0-1.{dsc,diff.gz} and
ketchup_orig_0.7.0.tar.gz files. I want to run pbuilder on them and read
Wrong filename. ketchup_0.7.0_orig.tar.gz is the right filename.
ketchup_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz is the correct one.
Cheers,
Laszlo/GCS
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: GNOME PPP uploaded to mentors.debian.net
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 13:30:28 +1000]: BTW, why http://bugs.debian.org/251472 has Goedson Teixeira Paixao [EMAIL PROTECTED] as owner of the ITP? Goedson made a mistake, he wants to sponsor the upload, but he wrongly put himself as the owner. But Dan is the one who filed the ITP in the first place, and Goedson does not want to package, _only sponsor_ it. As I see Dan already corrected it. Cheers, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Mozilla locale packages
* Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 20:39:41 +0400]: Is there an easy and automated way to create a mozilla locale package? Looks like they're all similar. Debian lacks russian mozilla locale package. See my mozilla-locale-hu package, will be available from the pool, after the next mirror pulse (~ 23h CET). Ofcourse you are right, they are almost similar to each other. Please notify Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] when your package is ready and in the pool, so he can add autochoose support for it. Cheers, Laszlo/GCS
Re: Packaging question
* Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 19:41:27 +0400]: Is it possible to make some files installed by 'make install' excluded from deb package??? Delete them after 'make install' from debian/rules . You may tamper with the Makefile as well, but be it as a last resort, only if the 'make install' create big files/files after a long calculation etc, you got the idea. Hope this helps, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sponsor wanted for 'ketchup' package
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 22:21:14 +1000]:
I don't think you should create a debian package for small script, IMO.
Agree. Even if I don't know where it should go, but definiately finding
a backage which would include ketchup sounds a better idea.
I would like to get hold of your ketchup_0.7.0-1.{dsc,diff.gz} and
ketchup_orig_0.7.0.tar.gz files. I want to run pbuilder on them and read
Wrong filename. ketchup_0.7.0_orig.tar.gz is the right filename.
ketchup_0.7.0.orig.tar.gz is the correct one.
Cheers,
Laszlo/GCS
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Looking for a sponsor to upload GNOME PPP
Hi Colin, Rene, * Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 10:29:32 +0200]: Colin Watson wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 01:15:58AM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: Anyway I think as perl is not build-essential, itself should show up in Build-Depends even. /usr/bin/perl is in perl-base, which is Essential and therefore build-essential. XML::Parser does need to be in the build-dependencies. and perl even is build-essential, too since dpkg-dev is which depends on perl :) Both are you correct. I stand corrected. Thanks. Cheers, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GNOME PPP uploaded to mentors.debian.net
* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 13:30:28 +1000]: BTW, why http://bugs.debian.org/251472 has Goedson Teixeira Paixao [EMAIL PROTECTED] as owner of the ITP? Goedson made a mistake, he wants to sponsor the upload, but he wrongly put himself as the owner. But Dan is the one who filed the ITP in the first place, and Goedson does not want to package, _only sponsor_ it. As I see Dan already corrected it. Cheers, Laszlo/GCS signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Mozilla locale packages
* Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 20:39:41 +0400]: Is there an easy and automated way to create a mozilla locale package? Looks like they're all similar. Debian lacks russian mozilla locale package. See my mozilla-locale-hu package, will be available from the pool, after the next mirror pulse (~ 23h CET). Ofcourse you are right, they are almost similar to each other. Please notify Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] when your package is ready and in the pool, so he can add autochoose support for it. Cheers, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for a sponsor to upload GNOME PPP
* Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 01:47:55 +0400]: On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 23:36 +0200, Nico Golde wrote: ah ok, i will search you package with google :) you have forgotten an url to the pacage. Oh, maybe I'm stupid, but I don't have any web space to place my stuff to. Especiall anonymous FTP server access. I can send all stuff to you if you want. ;) Or tell me where I can upload some files for free. Take a look at mentors.debian.net ; and please don't take personal, but *.ru domains are usually very slow. :( Cheers, Laszlo/GCS
Re: Looking for a sponsor to upload GNOME PPP
* Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 02:33:37 +0400]: On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 23:36 +0200, Nico Golde wrote: Psst, okay, download it here: http://warqraft.sourceforge.net/temporary/ ;-) Psst, that's look like a dead project. But be serious; your package has fatal problems: 1) in the clean target use 'rm -f debian/gnome-ppp.1' otherwise the build fails for me, 2) configure fails with the following: checking for perl... /usr/bin/perl configure: error: XML::Parser perl module is required for intltool Anyway I think as perl is not build-essential, itself should show up in Build-Depends even. I gave up here. Btw is libglade2-dev really needed? Side notes: delete the commented out and thus unnecessary lines from debian/rules, if you separate the build target, then it may be good to use -a to the dh_* commands, file an ITP in BTS and close it in debian/changelog etc... Cheers, Laszlo/GCS
Re: disk full on m.d.o?
* Joshua Kwan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-27 15:23:30 -0700]: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:50:16 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: You probably want this message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. But if the disk is full no one will see the message... Then who can be reached? I have sent a mail to that address back then, no answer yet. Regards, Laszlo/GCS
Re: GNOME PPP uploaded to mentors.debian.net
* Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 03:59:14 +0400]: Now you can download the test package of GNOME PPP from mentors.debian. net. I hope it works. Thanks. It looks much better now. Unfortunately I can not sponsor you, but at least your package has only minor nits to pick now: - latest Standards-Version is 3.6.1.0, - you should define man 'SECTION' to 1 in debian/gnome-ppp.sgml, - you may ask upstream for some strange warnings while compiling like: gnome-ppp-wvdialconf.c: In function `on_wvdialconf_out': gnome-ppp-wvdialconf.c:58: warning: char format, different type arg (arg 3) [...] gnome-ppp-main.c: In function `main': gnome-ppp-main.c:34: warning: statement with no effect - (ITP the package, so others will know it's being packaged). After fixing the first two, write a RFS mail to here, hope you will find a sponsor soon. Gotta go catch some sleep, Laszlo/GCS
Re: Looking for a sponsor to upload GNOME PPP
* Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 01:47:55 +0400]: On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 23:36 +0200, Nico Golde wrote: ah ok, i will search you package with google :) you have forgotten an url to the pacage. Oh, maybe I'm stupid, but I don't have any web space to place my stuff to. Especiall anonymous FTP server access. I can send all stuff to you if you want. ;) Or tell me where I can upload some files for free. Take a look at mentors.debian.net ; and please don't take personal, but *.ru domains are usually very slow. :( Cheers, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for a sponsor to upload GNOME PPP
* Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 02:33:37 +0400]: On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 23:36 +0200, Nico Golde wrote: Psst, okay, download it here: http://warqraft.sourceforge.net/temporary/ ;-) Psst, that's look like a dead project. But be serious; your package has fatal problems: 1) in the clean target use 'rm -f debian/gnome-ppp.1' otherwise the build fails for me, 2) configure fails with the following: checking for perl... /usr/bin/perl configure: error: XML::Parser perl module is required for intltool Anyway I think as perl is not build-essential, itself should show up in Build-Depends even. I gave up here. Btw is libglade2-dev really needed? Side notes: delete the commented out and thus unnecessary lines from debian/rules, if you separate the build target, then it may be good to use -a to the dh_* commands, file an ITP in BTS and close it in debian/changelog etc... Cheers, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: disk full on m.d.o?
* Joshua Kwan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-27 15:23:30 -0700]: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:50:16 +0200, Adeodato Sim wrote: You probably want this message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. But if the disk is full no one will see the message... Then who can be reached? I have sent a mail to that address back then, no answer yet. Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNOME PPP uploaded to mentors.debian.net
* Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-28 03:59:14 +0400]: Now you can download the test package of GNOME PPP from mentors.debian. net. I hope it works. Thanks. It looks much better now. Unfortunately I can not sponsor you, but at least your package has only minor nits to pick now: - latest Standards-Version is 3.6.1.0, - you should define man 'SECTION' to 1 in debian/gnome-ppp.sgml, - you may ask upstream for some strange warnings while compiling like: gnome-ppp-wvdialconf.c: In function `on_wvdialconf_out': gnome-ppp-wvdialconf.c:58: warning: char format, different type arg (arg 3) [...] gnome-ppp-main.c: In function `main': gnome-ppp-main.c:34: warning: statement with no effect - (ITP the package, so others will know it's being packaged). After fixing the first two, write a RFS mail to here, hope you will find a sponsor soon. Gotta go catch some sleep, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
