Re: adding icon to debian/
Hi Mechtilde. Am 04.10.20 um 12:03 schrieb Mechtilde: > I want to add an icon for the file jverein desktop as a *.png. So I put > this file into the debian/ directory. > > Now I get the message to put it into debian/source/include-binaries. > > After doing it I get the following massage: > dpkg-source: error: unwanted binary file: > debian/source/include-binaries/jameica-icon.png debian/source/include-binaries is for *documenting* stuff which is to be included. It is a file and not a directory and doesn't actually include the files itself. See e.g. libreoffice: $ cat debian/source/include-binaries debian/templates/debian-presentation.otp debian/templates/debian-presentation-background.xcf desktop/test/deployment/update/platform/linux_sparc64.oxt tarballs/798b2ffdc8bcfe7bca2cf92b62caf685-rhino1_5R5.zip tarballs/35c94d2df8893241173de1d16b6034c0-swingExSrc.zip tarballs/a7983f859eafb2677d7ff386a023bc40-xsltml_2.1.2.zip tarballs/pdfium-4260.tar.bz2 tarballs/skia-m85-e684c6daef6bfb774a325a069eda1f76ca6ac26c.tar.xz tarballs/dtoa-20180411.tgz So just put it into debian/ (or even directly in the dir where it is supposed to be, saves you cp and cleanup) and document it in include-binaries. Then it properly ends up in the .debian.tar.xz Regards, Rene
Re: error: 'char16_t' does not name a type; did you mean 'wchar_t'? (Was: Bug#899129: prime-phylo: FTBFS: cd obj-x86_64-linux-gnu && make -j8 -Oline returned exit code 2)
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 12:20:05PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 09:05:48AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > cd /build/prime-phylo-1.0.11/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/src/cxx/libraries/prime > > && /usr/bin/c++ -DONLY_ONE_TIMESAMPLE -DPERTURBED_NODE > > -Dprime_phylo_EXPORTS > > -I/build/prime-phylo-1.0.11/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/src/cxx/libraries/prime > > -I/build/prime-phylo-1.0.11/src/cxx/libraries/prime > > -I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/openmpi/include/openmpi > > -I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/openmpi/include -I/usr/ > > lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/openmpi/include/ompi/mpi/cxx -I/usr/include/libxml2 > > -I/build/prime-phylo-1.0.11/src/cxx/libraries > > -I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/openmpi/include/openmpi/ompi/mpi/cxx > > -I/usr/lib/openmpi/include/openmpi/ompi/mpi/cxx -g -O2 > > -fdebug-prefix-map=/build/prime-phylo-1.0.11=. -fstack-protector-strong > > -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 - > > Wreorder -Wall -fexceptions -g -fPIC -std=gnu++98 -o > > CMakeFiles/prime-phylo.dir/TreeInputOutput.cc.o -c > > /build/prime-phylo-1.0.11/src/cxx/libraries/prime/TreeInputOutput.cc > > > /usr/include/unicode/umachine.h:347:13: error: 'char16_t' does not name a > > type; did you mean 'wchar_t'? > ICU since 59 requires C++11 while your software uses -std=gnu++98. Otherwise you can just define it. See e.g. https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/diff/configure.ac?id=fabad007c60958f2ff87e8f636ff6a798ad1f963 +if test "$ICU_MAJOR" -ge "59"; then +# As of ICU 59 it defaults to typedef char16_t UChar; which is available +# with -std=c++11 but not all external libraries can be built with that, +# for those use a bit-compatible typedef uint16_t UChar; see +# icu/source/common/unicode/umachine.h +ICU_UCHAR_TYPE="-DUCHAR_TYPE=uint16_t" +else +ICU_UCHAR_TYPE="" +fi (but yes, projects using -std=c++11 don't need it.) Regards, Rene
Bug#887369: RFS: libreoffice-style-papirus/20170228-1 [ITP]
Hi, On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:01:32PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:20:10PM +0100, I wrote: > > An icon theme might be more work than a cursor or window theme as whatever > > needs the new icon would borrow from another theme and thus look out of > > place. > > > > > You can have another opinion. If not I will close the RFS and ITP in > > > the next few days. > > > > This is your time, no one has the right to tell you what to work on (at > > least not in Debian). You maintain a diverse set of packages, so a theme > > that's not a part of your main area has a pretty low priority. > > I just learned that Deepin's default theme is based on Papirus, which makes > this package a matter of adjusting LibreOffice to match, rather than just a > random unrelated theme. > > I don't know if there's a reasonable way to make LibreOffice default to this > theme when started from Deepin -- if not, it'd require a manual action from > the user, which hardly anyone is going to do. LO has it: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/vcl/source/app/IconThemeSelector.cxx?h=libreoffice-6-0-0#n50 This would need to be amended to detect Deepin (there's also desktop detection..) But then still there's the point I raised: the libreoffice part was last touched 1 year ago. In the meanwhile there have been icon changes here and there in LO and 6.0.0 is around the corner. Who is going to support this and eventual inconsistencies when icons are missing? (LOs -style packages have fallback Depends: to the "last-resort-fallback" tango, but...) Regards, Rene
Bug#883098: RFS: libreoffice-texmaths/0.43-1 [ITP]
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:49:52AM -0600, kkremit...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 19:20 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:05:43AM -0600, kkremit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > * Package name: libreoffice-texmaths
> > > Version : 0.43-1
> > > Upstream Author : Roland Baudin
> > > * URL : htthttp://roland65.free.fr/texmaths/
> > > * License : GPL2
> > > Section : tex
> > >
> > > It builds those binary packages:
> > >
> > > libreoffice-texmaths - TexMaths is a LaTeX equation editor for
> > > LibreOffice
> >
> > Looks good basically. What I saw, though is:
> >
> > Depends: libreoffice-common, libreoffice-core (>= 3.3.0~),
> > libreoffice-writer, texlive, dvipng, ${misc:Depends}
> >
> > - common and -core are superfluous (writer would depend on them
> > anyway)
> > and 3.3.0 is there since the beginning. Even wheezy has 3.5.4
> > - README says
> > " - LibreOffice Draw (version 4 or later)
> > "
> > so you probably want to a) add -draw b) make it >= 4.0 :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rene
>
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I tested the dependencies some more and
> uploaded libreoffice-texmaths-0.43-2 with the changes. To summarize:
>
> Depends: libreoffice-draw (>= 4.0), texlive, ${misc:Depends}
> Enhances: libreoffice-writer, libreoffice-impress, libreoffice-draw
Thanks, uploaded.
No idea what's customary in these RFS bugs. Are you going to close it?
:)
Regards,
Rene
Bug#883098: RFS: libreoffice-texmaths/0.43-1 [ITP]
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:05:43AM -0600, kkremit...@gmail.com wrote:
> * Package name: libreoffice-texmaths
> Version : 0.43-1
> Upstream Author : Roland Baudin
> * URL : htthttp://roland65.free.fr/texmaths/
> * License : GPL2
> Section : tex
>
> It builds those binary packages:
>
> libreoffice-texmaths - TexMaths is a LaTeX equation editor for
> LibreOffice
Looks good basically. What I saw, though is:
Depends: libreoffice-common, libreoffice-core (>= 3.3.0~),
libreoffice-writer, texlive, dvipng, ${misc:Depends}
- common and -core are superfluous (writer would depend on them anyway)
and 3.3.0 is there since the beginning. Even wheezy has 3.5.4
- README says
" - LibreOffice Draw (version 4 or later)
"
so you probably want to a) add -draw b) make it >= 4.0 :-)
Regards,
Rene
Re: Droping v5 extension to library names
Hi, On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:14:35PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > when libraries were build with gcc 5 'v5' was added to the soversion > inside the library name. Should this extension be kept even if there is > a new soversion. For instance for the package libbpp-core2v5 which has > now soversion=3. Should the new package be named > > libbpp-core3v5 > or > libbpp-core3 > > ? You can drop it.[1] Regards, Rene [1] gcc 7 will change stuff AGAIN. No idea about what exactly is affected, but I've already seen some cases. No idea about the suffix to-be-used then either. Will probably be some time to come and hopefully with proper announcement etc.
Bug#827715: RFS: muttprint/0.73-5.2 [NMU, RC] -- Pretty printing of mails
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:01:24PM +0900, Sean Whitton wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for an NMU of muttprint, fixing a stretch RC > bug (older than 7 days and no maintainer activity). I use muttprint That is not correct. It is only RC since *2* days. "Severity set to 'serious' from 'important' Request was from Niels Thykier to cont...@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 18 Jun 2016 17:04:31 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available." Regards, Rene
Re: Endianess testing?
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > how do I test the endianess of a system for the inclusion in > debian/rules? > > lscpu | fgrep -q "Little Endian" > > comes in my mind; but is this safe? qemu-userland would probably report > something wrong here? You don't need to? dpkg knows. amd64: $ dpkg-architecture | grep ENDIAN DEB_BUILD_ARCH_ENDIAN=little DEB_HOST_ARCH_ENDIAN=little DEB_TARGET_ARCH_ENDIAN=little it's exported via /usr/share/dpkg/architecture.mk, too, you can do something like include /usr/share/dpkg/architecture.mk [...] ifeq "$(DEB_HOST_ARCH_ENDIAN)" "big" endif Same with little, obviously. Regards, Rene
Re: tophat: Help needed with boost
Hi, On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 03:31:21PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > On 2014-03-18 14:19, Andreas Tille wrote: > > segment_juncs.o: In function `boost::thread::get_id() const': > > /usr/include/boost/thread/detail/thread.hpp:730: undefined reference to > > `boost::thread::native_handle()' > > segment_juncs.o: In function `boost::thread::join()': > > /usr/include/boost/thread/detail/thread.hpp:756: undefined reference to > > `boost::thread::join_noexcept()' > > segment_juncs.o: In function `~thread': > > ... > > Looking the command that generates this output, you can see that it's > missing -lboost_thread and -lboost_system: Indeed. > The generated Makefiles have empty BOOST_THREAD_LIB and BOOST_SYSTEM_LIB > variables. A bit of investigating reveals that it's the location of the > boost libraries that seems to be the problem, because adding the Or simply not having them in the Makefile.am... > following to debian/rules seems to fix the issue: > > override_dh_auto_configure: > dh_auto_configure -- \ > --with-boost-libdir=/usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH) > > I'm not entirely sure that's the correct solution to the problem, > though. Perhaps someone with more Multiarch + autotools experience can > enlighten us. This only helps in the "lib is not found" case. Not in the BOOST_THREAD_LIB is empty case, afaik But that should be done anyways for safety. The libs are there and not in /usr/lib and "helping" boost detection isn't bad. I had both cases already.. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140318144810.gb24...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: RFS: wavemon (already in Debian)
Hi, On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:53:50AM -0800, Nicholas Breen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:46:34PM +, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "wavemon". > > > > * Package name: wavemon > >Version : 0.7.3-1 > > I'd certainly like to see an updated wavemon package in the archive. However, > Rene Englehard is still listed as the current maintainer and last uploader, > and > it doesn't seem to be orphaned or RFAed. Have you talked with him about > taking > over the package, or possibly sponsoring your uploads? Yes we talked about it - he can have it :) No time for sponsoring, though... Regards, Rene -- 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/20120223213146.gd17...@rene-engelhard.de
Re: RFS: mozvoikko - Finnish spell-checker extension for Iceweasel and Icedove
Hi, Heikki Mäntysaari wrote: > mozvoikko - Finnish spell-checker extensions for Iceweasel and Icedove > mozvoikko-iceweasel - Finnish spell-checker extension for Iceweasel If at all (see also below) iceweasel-mozvoikko. > Package mozvoikko installs the spell-checker extension and mozvoikko-iceweasel > enables it in iceweasel. mozvoikko-icedove will do this with icedove > in the future. I'm > not absolutely sure that this is the right way to package a software > like this, so I'm also > looking for comments about my packaging. See above. And your description of "mozvoikko" implies that it already contains the extension for Iceweasel (and worse, for Icedove). People might just install it instead of iceweasel-mozvoikko. Have you considered just putting the lib in the two packages and just don't build "mozvoikko"? (They have separate extension dirs anyway?) Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: openoffice.org-voikko (was: oo2-voikko)
Hi, Am Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 08:22 schrieben Sie: > I did the change to 1.1-2 yesterday evening. I soon got a few notices that > multiple spellcheckers work in OOo just fine. What do you think? Of course Right. > it's not maybe that wise to use more than one spellchecker for a language, > but apparently it's entirely possible. Right. But soikko/voikko are sufficiently similar (and soikko is unmaintained upstream afaik and non-free) so that it doesn't really make sense to install both soikko and voikko? [ and soikko could be removed if voikko is in the archive if no one objects ] I didn't say you should conflict against myspell-fi or so but soikko/voikko conflicts seem sensible... Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Re: RFS: openoffice.org-voikko (was: oo2-voikko)
Hi, Am Montag, 25. September 2006 18:40 schrieb Timo Jyrinki: > URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/openoffice.org-voikko > > I uploaded this packages despite the remaining problems, so that there'd > be the newest version at mentors.debian.net anyway. Hopefully the first > 3-4 packages can go in first, and then we'll see if openoffice.org-voikko > can be fixed as well. I guess you want to conflict against openoffice.org-soikko? Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Re: use of xvfb-run in pbuilder builds
Am Montag, 3. Juli 2006 23:33 schrieb Justin Pryzby: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:43:50PM -0500, Carlo Segre wrote: > > > I am trying to use xvfb-run to permit pbuilder to build some packages > > which need to connect to X. > If you're aiming to get the package uploaded, this isn't allowed. You > can't assume an X11 environment, or a network connection, or any such > thing. That's exactly why you use xvfb-run in this case because it provides a virtual one. No "normal" X required. This *is* allowed per policy; I don't see where it is not and for that matter I know some packages which need(ed) that... Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr
Hi, Vedran Fura? wrote: > Rene Engelhard wrote: > > After this is fixed (and maybe the version changed) I'll sponsor it. > > Uploaded to mentors: > http://mentors-test.workaround.org/debian/pool/main/m/myspell-hr/ Uploaded. Regards, Rene signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr
Hi, Vedran Fura? wrote: > The upstream doesn't provide any version information so there shouldn't be > any problem if I fake new upstream releases: 1.0-1 -> 1.1-1 -> 1.2-1 . Can't you use dates then? Like MMDD-a? Anyway, I just saw a bug testing this for upload again... You register the hyphenation one for hyph_hr_HR.dic but what's in dicts/ is actually hyph_hr.dic... So OOo of course doesn't show/recognize it. After this is fixed (and maybe the version changed) I'll sponsor it. Regards, Rene signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr
Hi, Vedran Fura? wrote: > % cat debian/openoffice.org-hyphenation-hr.dictlistinfo > HYPH hr HR hyph_hr_HR > > also: > > % cat debian/myspell-hr.dictlistinfo > DICT hr HR hr_HR Yes, OK... If I oversaw the first, sorry. > > irrelevant. not used by any myspell-using app. > > I know, but you mentioned that directory. Oops, sorry, typo. > > unstable first, so you basically develop for unstable). That it works > > without hr.* for you is nice but it doesn't do here. > > I use sid with tbird 1.5.0.2-3 too. Note that even myspell-en doesn't > install any symlinks in /usr/share/dict. Did you mean > /usr/share/myspell/dicts/ maybe? Yes. > >> Btw, why you don't like mentors.d.n? I'll try to find some http/ftp server. > > > > Because for example with the upload stuff you are forced to increment the > > version > > number needlessly. I forgot the other reasons I had a loong time ago to > > not like it; maybe that got fixed, don't remember > > But you don't need to upload anything, just download. :-) Of course I need to. I need to download it to build and upload it. And I didn't mean upload stuff from me but from you. You need to do a -2, -3 etc for any minor change (as in the normal archive, too, but this is packages not in the archive yet so they should be -1 in most cases) Regards, Rene signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr
Hi, Vedran Fura? wrote: > I just copied debian/rules and control from myspell-en or something. Could openoffice.org-dictionaries, yes. (openoffice.org-dictionaries is the source package for myspell-en-us/myspell-en-gb) > you tell me what exactly should I remove from debian/rules? But, yes, it > works. perefarbly, just the loops and the whole unneeded stuff and just install your files. but minor point as long as it works > >> Just oversaw something: > >> > >> - Where is the dictionary.lst entry for openoffice.org-hyhenation-hr? > > % grep hyp /usr/share/myspell/dicts/dictionary.lst > HYPH hr HR hyph_hr_HR I didn't see any info file for it in the tree... Maybe I oversaw it.. Note the hyph info should be in openoffice.org-hyphenation-hr and not in myspell-hr > > Third time is a charm... > > > > - please add a hr.dic -> hr_HR.dic and hr.aff -> hr_HR.aff symlink in > > /usr/share/dicts so that Mozilla actually shows "Croatian" in the > > dropdown list. > > Well, I don't have mozilla installed, only tbird and I have Croatian (and > english) in the dropdown list without symlinks in /usr/share/dict: > > % ls -l /usr/share/dict > lrwxrwxrwx 1 rootroot 30 2006-06-11 03:09 words -> > /etc/dictionaries-common/words irrelevant. not used by any myspell-using app. > but: > > % ls -l /usr/share/myspell/dicts/ > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 113037 2006-04-26 03:32 DicOOo.sxw > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 30 2006-05-04 02:53 dictionary.lst -> > /etc/openoffice/dictionary.lst > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27828 2006-03-06 23:44 en_GB.aff > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2006-03-09 03:16 en-GB.aff -> en_GB.aff > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 527490 2006-03-06 23:44 en_GB.dic > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2006-03-09 03:16 en-GB.dic -> en_GB.dic > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root3045 2006-03-06 23:44 en_US.aff > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2006-03-09 03:16 en-US.aff -> en_US.aff > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 696131 2006-03-06 23:44 en_US.dic > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2006-03-09 03:16 en-US.dic -> en_US.dic > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root1196 2006-05-04 02:24 hr_HR.aff > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2006-05-04 02:27 hr-HR.aff -> hr_HR.aff > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2353416 2006-05-04 02:24 hr_HR.dic > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2006-05-04 02:27 hr-HR.dic -> hr_HR.dic > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root7098 2006-05-04 02:24 hyph_hr.dic Doesn't work here. Thunderbird on sid (1.5.0.2-3). (sarge doesn't count; you develop for the next release which is etch and the packages for that go to unstable first, so you basically develop for unstable). That it works without hr.* for you is nice but it doesn't do here. > Btw, why you don't like mentors.d.n? I'll try to find some http/ftp server. Because for example with the upload stuff you are forced to increment the version number needlessly. I forgot the other reasons I had a loong time ago to not like it; maybe that got fixed, don't remember Regards, Rene signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr
Rene Engelhard wrote: > Rene Engelhard wrote: > > - Please make everything -1 since the whole thing is your "* Initial > > release" > > - Close the ITP (see above) > > - up-to-date standards-version is 3.7.2 > > - You don't really need the dh_listpackages and find infrastructure > > which just was done by me for openoffice.org-dictionaries to support > > multiple dicts/thesauri/hyph stuff easily. It's not needed for > > myspell-hr. OTOH, it also doesn't hurt as long as it works > > - openoffice.org2 is obsolete and not anywhere anymore. No need to mention > > that. > > - please depend on at least openoffice.org (>= 1.0.3) | > > openoffice.org-writer for > > then hyphenation stuff, "openoffice.org" is just a dummy package > > depending on all modules and people might just want to install > > -writer, and not the others. > > (Maybe -impress should be added, too) > > Just oversaw something: > > - Where is the dictionary.lst entry for openoffice.org-hyhenation-hr? Third time is a charm... - please add a hr.dic -> hr_HR.dic and hr.aff -> hr_HR.aff symlink in /usr/share/dicts so that Mozilla actually shows "Croatian" in the dropdown list. Regards, Rene signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rene Engelhard wrote: > - Please make everything -1 since the whole thing is your "* Initial > release" > - Close the ITP (see above) > - up-to-date standards-version is 3.7.2 > - You don't really need the dh_listpackages and find infrastructure > which just was done by me for openoffice.org-dictionaries to support > multiple dicts/thesauri/hyph stuff easily. It's not needed for > myspell-hr. OTOH, it also doesn't hurt as long as it works > - openoffice.org2 is obsolete and not anywhere anymore. No need to mention > that. > - please depend on at least openoffice.org (>= 1.0.3) | openoffice.org-writer > for > then hyphenation stuff, "openoffice.org" is just a dummy package > depending on all modules and people might just want to install > -writer, and not the others. > (Maybe -impress should be added, too) Just oversaw something: - - Where is the dictionary.lst entry for openoffice.org-hyhenation-hr? Regards, Rene -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEjvJL+FmQsCSK63MRAkhJAJkBV9Yp/Sg/FhHUU0kr6pnQAHAhcACfZ9Xm IQGU0qhU1YYtLwh74b6iqu4= =NP9Z -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Eddy Petrisor wrote: > > > - myspell-hr (Croatian dictionary for myspell) > > > > > > Like bfilter, but this one is lintian/linda clean. > > > > > > When I find a sponsor I will add a "Initial upload to debian...closes ITP > > > bug number" entry to debian/changelog. > > > > This should be done beforehand so you can speedup the process and so that > > nobody else starts working on something is already done. > > Exactly. > > Vedran: In case no one sponsored yet, please prepare a ready-to-upload package > and make it somewhere available for me to fetch and look at it (I'd sponsor). > Note that somewhere *excludes* mentors.debian.net. I just looked anyway: Please: - - Please make everything -1 since the whole thing is your "* Initial release" - - Close the ITP (see above) - - up-to-date standards-version is 3.7.2 - - You don't really need the dh_listpackages and find infrastructure which just was done by me for openoffice.org-dictionaries to support multiple dicts/thesauri/hyph stuff easily. It's not needed for myspell-hr. OTOH, it also doesn't hurt as long as it works - - openoffice.org2 is obsolete and not anywhere anymore. No need to mention that. - - please depend on at least openoffice.org (>= 1.0.3) | openoffice.org-writer for then hyphenation stuff, "openoffice.org" is just a dummy package depending on all modules and people might just want to install -writer, and not the others. (Maybe -impress should be added, too) Regards, Rene -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEjvG0+FmQsCSK63MRAtjrAJ4lRyemT40y8LpHtSpo+Zm9QZvLdACfeNyr kYD5fpIGejEneoeYxk2ttkg= =/OE2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr
Hi, Eddy Petrisor wrote: > > - myspell-hr (Croatian dictionary for myspell) > > > > Like bfilter, but this one is lintian/linda clean. > > > > When I find a sponsor I will add a "Initial upload to debian...closes ITP > > bug number" entry to debian/changelog. > > This should be done beforehand so you can speedup the process and so that > nobody else starts working on something is already done. Exactly. Vedran: In case no one sponsored yet, please prepare a ready-to-upload package and make it somewhere available for me to fetch and look at it (I'd sponsor). Note that somewhere *excludes* mentors.debian.net. Regards, Rene signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Q on fixed-in-experimental
Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 02:18:15AM +0200, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 00:14 +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > > > When a bug is tagged "fixed-in-experimental", does that bug number still > > > have to appear in debian/changelog for the next upload to unstable or > > > will the BTS be updated when the package in experimental is replaced? > > It has to appear in changelog. > > > > > I know how to filter the BTS to show bugs with these tags, just > > > wondering if it's automated. > > Can't be automated. An automatic system can't figure out if the fix is > > still in the package or maybe dropped from the unstable upload due to > > cause other problems. > > To clarify, it still has to appear in debian/changelog, but it doesn't > have to be in the most recent version; leaving it in the version where > you fixed the problem is good enough. together with -v to dpkg-buildpackage / debuild so the bugs actually get into the Closes: line of the .changes so they actually get closed. Regards, Rene signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Fwd: Re: Sponsor wanted - myspell-cz, libnova & more..
Hi Petr, I typoed your e-mail adress. Can you reply on-list (and probably also to the bugreports) what you intend to do and whether you intend to build myspell-cs from ispell-czech? (which would be the best solution..) Regards, Rene -- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -- Subject: Re: Sponsor wanted - myspell-cz, libnova & more.. Date: Montag, 7. November 2005 17:27 From: Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org Cc: Petr Kubanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Petr Cech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi, Am Montag, 7. November 2005 12:54 schrieb Petr Kubanek: > I packed myspell-cz, so one will be able to get Czech spelling in ^^ > Debian, which will work with OpenOffice and Mozilla. It's there: > > http://lascaux.asu.cas.cz/~petr/myspell-cs-cz_20051101-1.tar.gz ^ Please package it non-native. But I can look what you have done so far tonight.. BTW; why -cs-cz and not just -cs? If that's only the source pkg name and the binary package is names -cz this is wrong. specify the language code, not the country code (here it should be myspell-cs). See the dictionaries-common policy. > I would like to as if somebody can sponsor this package. It's based on I could. > myspell-sk, and as I'm familiar with Debian packaging, I hope I make > debs right. Althought Czech isn't world language, there are 10^7 (maybe > more) potential users of that package, so I hope that it's worth the > effort. I think it is. But I still think building it from ispell-czech (see #246129 and #237973) makes more sense because it then gets updates automatically when the ispell stuff changes; most of the myspell-* packages in Debian are done so. But if Petr doesn't want that (he didn't reply to any of those two merged bugs for over 1.5 years...). Cc'ing him, though Regards, Rene P.S.: It would be better to start *one* thread for *one* package... -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 --- -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Re: Sponsor wanted - myspell-cz, libnova & more..
Hi, Am Montag, 7. November 2005 12:54 schrieb Petr Kubanek: > I packed myspell-cz, so one will be able to get Czech spelling in ^^ > Debian, which will work with OpenOffice and Mozilla. It's there: > > http://lascaux.asu.cas.cz/~petr/myspell-cs-cz_20051101-1.tar.gz ^ Please package it non-native. But I can look what you have done so far tonight.. BTW; why -cs-cz and not just -cs? If that's only the source pkg name and the binary package is names -cz this is wrong. specify the language code, not the country code (here it should be myspell-cs). See the dictionaries-common policy. > I would like to as if somebody can sponsor this package. It's based on I could. > myspell-sk, and as I'm familiar with Debian packaging, I hope I make > debs right. Althought Czech isn't world language, there are 10^7 (maybe > more) potential users of that package, so I hope that it's worth the > effort. I think it is. But I still think building it from ispell-czech (see #246129 and #237973) makes more sense because it then gets updates automatically when the ispell stuff changes; most of the myspell-* packages in Debian are done so. But if Petr doesn't want that (he didn't reply to any of those two merged bugs for over 1.5 years...). Cc'ing him, though Regards, Rene P.S.: It would be better to start *one* thread for *one* package... -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Re: RFS: jaxml -- XML document generation for Python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dmitri Alenitchev wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:53:22PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote > > > Jaxml is a python module that defines a class XML_document, which allows > > > easy and trouble-free generation of XML documents. > > > > If it's a python module, naming it "jaxp" violates the python policy. Go > > read it ;) > > The package is already in Debian and named `jaxml'. and? What prevents you from fixing errors the previous maintainer did? Regards, Rene -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDB7g7+FmQsCSK63MRAqqEAJ94SQmn4AW5nuHTeI/Atz12KcZjYgCeLPcj 6Er9rnY4AtOiD/DUdZjdDwg= =sYSM -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: jaxml -- XML document generation for Python
Hi, Dmitri Alenitchev wrote: > Jaxml is a python module that defines a class XML_document, which allows > easy and trouble-free generation of XML documents. If it's a python module, naming it "jaxp" violates the python policy. Go read it ;) Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pbuilder fails when looking for X / XOpenDisplay [solved]
Hi, Kevin Coyner wrote: > On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 06:21:22PM +0200, Lo???c Minier wrote.. > > > > I suggest you try understanding what the requirements are to > > build your package, this is usually achieved by reading the > > upstream INSTALL file or better: the configure.ac/in. You can > > then derive the needed build-deps. > > I was missing xlibs-dev in the Source/Build-Depends part of my > control file. Use what you really need. It was already mentioned in this thread (libx11-dev). Don't use xlibs-dev, it's superfluous and a empty dummy package anyway... Grüße/Regards, Rene -- .''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Cant build a simple package.
Hi, Rakotomandimby (R12y) Mihamina wrote: > On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 13:42 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > http://www.ibiblio.org/... > > Yes! I had to 'mkdir ./debian/DEBIAN' manually. :-) > Anyway, manually creating ".debian/DEBIAN" is not clearly mentionned in > tha Debian new Maintainer guide. Because that's something you should not do. See my reply to your initial post.. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Cant build a simple package.
Hi, Rakotomandimby (R12y) Mihamina wrote: > #!/usr/bin/make -f > > export DH_VERBOSE=1 > > configure: > > build: > > clean: > > install: > > dh_testdir > cp minimalist.pl $(CURDIR)/debian/minimalist > > binary-indep: > > binary-arch: > > dh_builddeb > > binary: binary-indep binary-arch > > .PHONY: build clean binary-indep binary-arch binary install This is broken. debian/rules is a makefile. dpkg-buildpackage just calls binary. so you have to add depends to your makefile targets And you want to add the needed dh_* commands before dh_builddep. They *are* needed. You also want to move those to binary-indep since you have a Architecture: all package (if you have any in control. fix it). HTH. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Simple Debian Package Creation?
Hi, Joey Hess wrote: > Rene Engelhard wrote: > > > any debian rules. > > > > the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken. > > No, there is no convention and it doesn't matter at all what you name > the package's source directory. This has been completly unnecessary for > years. Not for dh_make. dh_make relies on that for filling out the template.. And the convention I meant was for normal source tar.gzs... > > And: You *could* use a random directory name later after dh_install > > (dh_install needs to get the info it puts into the template from somehwre). > > You seem to be confused about what dh_install is. Yes, typo. I of course meant dh_make. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Re: Simple Debian Package Creation?
Hi, Joey Hess wrote: > Rene Engelhard wrote: > > > any debian rules. > > > > the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken. > > No, there is no convention and it doesn't matter at all what you name > the package's source directory. This has been completly unnecessary for > years. Not for dh_make. dh_make relies on that for filling out the template.. And the convention I meant was for normal source tar.gzs... > > And: You *could* use a random directory name later after dh_install > > (dh_install needs to get the info it puts into the template from somehwre). > > You seem to be confused about what dh_install is. Yes, typo. I of course meant dh_make. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Simple Debian Package Creation?
Hi,
I know both the deb (Debian developer) and the rpm (at work) side..
Am Mittwoch, 3. November 2004 17:47 schrieb Zach Garner:
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
You don't need to use them... mostly what you need is just dh_* from
debhelper. Each one has its own purpose. Many people don't need them all...
> 2. The number of files that I have to create within the /debian
> directory is difficult to deal with, and having to create the /debian
> directory within my application directory and being forced to name my
> application directory according to debian rules is very irritating.
You don't need to do that manally. dh_make gives you a template. You need to
adjust that a bit, though, for your needs...
> 3. Most of the package creation scripts (I'm refering explicitly to
> dh_make which is supposed to be the proper way of creating a package, as
> discussed in the New Maintainer's Guide) expect that you are building a
> traditional unix application, that's written in C, has ./configure and a
> Makefile. All we are doing in most of our packages is installing some
> files. Why can't that be simple?
Because most stuff *is* ./configure; make; make install
If you have a stuff which is not that way and just needs putting files around,
just do it. No one tells you you have to stick exactly with dh_makes
template. you just can use cp, install or whatever to install the files into
the proper debian/foo/usr/... directories...
> I feel that RPM creation is better here. One command ('rpmbuild') is
> used. One file, the .spec file, is needed with different
> sections for each part. I can keep my rpm packaging files any where I
> want it, and I don't have to have my application directory conform to
You can have that with debian/* too. Just stick them somewhere and copy it
into your pristine source if needed. No one tells you that debian/ has to be
in your source tarball, it even is discouraged...
> any debian rules.
the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken. I
don't see anyhow how it is bad to name a directory foo-version.
And: You *could* use a random directory name later after dh_install
(dh_install needs to get the info it puts into the template from somehwre).
YOu'll get warnings and your poackage probably won't be Debian policy
compliant (.dsc/.diff.gz/.orig.tar.gz) but it would work.
dh_make is a tool for people building debs mainly for the dist. There are some
policies which *are* to follow...
>
> Why can't debian package building be as simple as 'dpkg-create
> foo.spec'?
That's what dh_make does. Packaging is more than just using a template...
> Second, why can't I create packages with standard unix commands? Why
> can't I say something like:
> $ tar cvzf data.tgz myapplication/*
> $ tar czvf control.tgz control
> $ tar czvf mypackage-0.1.deb data.tgz control.tgz
man ar, man tar, man deb
you *could* do that manually, read man deb for the exact structure - as deb
ist just an ar archive with two tar archives and one file. But it is *far*
easier to get a package right with the "normal" way...
> My main complaint here, is that we really want to be able to build the
> debian packages from any developer workstation. Since we don't impose
> operating system requirements on developers, we can't expect debian to
> be on all workstations.
You can't do that with rpm either. You need rpm installed anyhow.
Same with debian.
Regards,
Rene
--
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
`- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Re: Simple Debian Package Creation?
Hi,
I know both the deb (Debian developer) and the rpm (at work) side..
Am Mittwoch, 3. November 2004 17:47 schrieb Zach Garner:
> First:
> 1. The sheer number of helper scripts, with layers and layers of
> scripts built on top of each other is really confusing.
You don't need to use them... mostly what you need is just dh_* from
debhelper. Each one has its own purpose. Many people don't need them all...
> 2. The number of files that I have to create within the /debian
> directory is difficult to deal with, and having to create the /debian
> directory within my application directory and being forced to name my
> application directory according to debian rules is very irritating.
You don't need to do that manally. dh_make gives you a template. You need to
adjust that a bit, though, for your needs...
> 3. Most of the package creation scripts (I'm refering explicitly to
> dh_make which is supposed to be the proper way of creating a package, as
> discussed in the New Maintainer's Guide) expect that you are building a
> traditional unix application, that's written in C, has ./configure and a
> Makefile. All we are doing in most of our packages is installing some
> files. Why can't that be simple?
Because most stuff *is* ./configure; make; make install
If you have a stuff which is not that way and just needs putting files around,
just do it. No one tells you you have to stick exactly with dh_makes
template. you just can use cp, install or whatever to install the files into
the proper debian/foo/usr/... directories...
> I feel that RPM creation is better here. One command ('rpmbuild') is
> used. One file, the .spec file, is needed with different
> sections for each part. I can keep my rpm packaging files any where I
> want it, and I don't have to have my application directory conform to
You can have that with debian/* too. Just stick them somewhere and copy it
into your pristine source if needed. No one tells you that debian/ has to be
in your source tarball, it even is discouraged...
> any debian rules.
the foo-0.1 is a convention. if your stuff doesn't follow it it is broken. I
don't see anyhow how it is bad to name a directory foo-version.
And: You *could* use a random directory name later after dh_install
(dh_install needs to get the info it puts into the template from somehwre).
YOu'll get warnings and your poackage probably won't be Debian policy
compliant (.dsc/.diff.gz/.orig.tar.gz) but it would work.
dh_make is a tool for people building debs mainly for the dist. There are some
policies which *are* to follow...
>
> Why can't debian package building be as simple as 'dpkg-create
> foo.spec'?
That's what dh_make does. Packaging is more than just using a template...
> Second, why can't I create packages with standard unix commands? Why
> can't I say something like:
> $ tar cvzf data.tgz myapplication/*
> $ tar czvf control.tgz control
> $ tar czvf mypackage-0.1.deb data.tgz control.tgz
man ar, man tar, man deb
you *could* do that manually, read man deb for the exact structure - as deb
ist just an ar archive with two tar archives and one file. But it is *far*
easier to get a package right with the "normal" way...
> My main complaint here, is that we really want to be able to build the
> debian packages from any developer workstation. Since we don't impose
> operating system requirements on developers, we can't expect debian to
> be on all workstations.
You can't do that with rpm either. You need rpm installed anyhow.
Same with debian.
Regards,
Rene
--
.''`. Renà Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
`- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Re: RFS: astyle (previously orphaned)
Hi, Margarita Manterola wrote: > I've placed the new package at the same location. Thanks for your time. Uploaded. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: astyle (previously orphaned)
Hi, Margarita Manterola wrote: > I've placed the new package at the same location. Thanks for your time. Uploaded. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: astyle (previously orphaned)
Hi, Margarita Manterola wrote: > I'm making a new package for astyle, which has been orphaned in > August. I need a sponsor to upload it. > > In the package I've made, I've updated the files so that they comply > with the new policies, and I've also taken care of some fixable bugs > (3 out of 7). > [...] > The new package (source and binary) can be found at: > http://www.gnuservers.com.ar/~marga/debian/astyle/ > > Please do tell me what you think of it. You moved to using dpatch; please mention that in the changelog. Otherwise it looks OK although probably using patch-stamp instead of patch is better (I vaguely remember something not working with just patch, I am using patch-stamp without problems). Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: astyle (previously orphaned)
Hi, Margarita Manterola wrote: > I'm making a new package for astyle, which has been orphaned in > August. I need a sponsor to upload it. > > In the package I've made, I've updated the files so that they comply > with the new policies, and I've also taken care of some fixable bugs > (3 out of 7). > [...] > The new package (source and binary) can be found at: > http://www.gnuservers.com.ar/~marga/debian/astyle/ > > Please do tell me what you think of it. You moved to using dpatch; please mention that in the changelog. Otherwise it looks OK although probably using patch-stamp instead of patch is better (I vaguely remember something not working with just patch, I am using patch-stamp without problems). Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sponsor for openoffice.org-help-pl
Hi, Marcin Orlowski wrote: > I've packaged polish help for openoffice.org. The package > openoffice.org-help-pl is now on mentors and I'm recently > looking for sponsor. Anyone? Put it somewhere web-accssible (no, I don't mean mentors.debian.net) and I'll look... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sponsor for openoffice.org-help-pl
Hi, Marcin Orlowski wrote: > I've packaged polish help for openoffice.org. The package > openoffice.org-help-pl is now on mentors and I'm recently > looking for sponsor. Anyone? Put it somewhere web-accssible (no, I don't mean mentors.debian.net) and I'll look... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: problem with debug libraries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, martin f krafft wrote: [ snip ] > I am using dh_strip --keep-debug to keep these binaries purposely in > place. Thus, I should probably override the last two errors. > However, I am unsure about the first six lines. What do they mean? > What am I doing wrong? Why does stripping fixes that? The libraries /usr/lib/debug/* should go into a -dbg package. Linda then does not complain. The debug stuff should not be in the normal package. There is no problem with the /usr/lib/debug/* stuff itself; you just should put that into a -dbg package. You probably did something wrong with dh_strip --dbg-package Assuming you have libfoo0 you add a new section about libfoo0-dbg and specify dh_strip --dbg-package libfoo0 which is supposed to install the stuff into libfoo0-dbg. Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBCuHi+FmQsCSK63MRAsG7AKCDd1BeilkzwaAUauvMlW2fXh7g4QCfVjWk FB4Mf/OeTQRo6tHisIV97RE= =T8p8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: problem with debug libraries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, martin f krafft wrote: [ snip ] > I am using dh_strip --keep-debug to keep these binaries purposely in > place. Thus, I should probably override the last two errors. > However, I am unsure about the first six lines. What do they mean? > What am I doing wrong? Why does stripping fixes that? The libraries /usr/lib/debug/* should go into a -dbg package. Linda then does not complain. The debug stuff should not be in the normal package. There is no problem with the /usr/lib/debug/* stuff itself; you just should put that into a -dbg package. You probably did something wrong with dh_strip --dbg-package Assuming you have libfoo0 you add a new section about libfoo0-dbg and specify dh_strip --dbg-package libfoo0 which is supposed to install the stuff into libfoo0-dbg. GrÃÃe/Regards, Renà - -- .''`. Renà Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBCuHi+FmQsCSK63MRAsG7AKCDd1BeilkzwaAUauvMlW2fXh7g4QCfVjWk FB4Mf/OeTQRo6tHisIV97RE= =T8p8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Removing Other Packages' Conflicting Files
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am packaging a package - A - which conflicts with only some files in > another package - B - (A depends on the rest of B's files). If A also > contained the files in B with which it conflicts, I think I would tag A > Replaces: B and be done; but A doesn't contain these files, it simply > conflicts with them, so they must be removed. > > How do I stop files from B from being installed? If I simply put rm > into A's postinst script, the files could be reinstalled the > next time B is upgraded. first: try to get a better solution second: if you are *sure* this is ok and won't break stuff: dpkg-divert, see policy... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Removing Other Packages' Conflicting Files
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am packaging a package - A - which conflicts with only some files in > another package - B - (A depends on the rest of B's files). If A also > contained the files in B with which it conflicts, I think I would tag A > Replaces: B and be done; but A doesn't contain these files, it simply > conflicts with them, so they must be removed. > > How do I stop files from B from being installed? If I simply put rm > into A's postinst script, the files could be reinstalled the > next time B is upgraded. first: try to get a better solution second: if you are *sure* this is ok and won't break stuff: dpkg-divert, see policy... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CVS versions
Hi, Dan Korostelev wrote: > How to properly debianize and maintain CVS versions of software? There's > no tarballs and no in directory name. Make a orig.tar.gz out of the CVS co. and name it something like +cvsYYMMDD Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CVS versions
Hi, Dan Korostelev wrote: > How to properly debianize and maintain CVS versions of software? There's > no tarballs and no in directory name. Make a orig.tar.gz out of the CVS co. and name it something like +cvsYYMMDD Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Looking for a sponsor to upload GNOME PPP
Hi, 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 :) Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Looking for a sponsor to upload GNOME PPP
Hi, 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 :) Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: swftools - collection of SWF (Flash) manipulation and generation
Hi, Clement nodens Hermann wrote: [ snip ] > ~ It also provide librfxswf, a fully featured library which can be used > ~ for standalone SWF generation. It includes support for bitmaps, buttons, > ~ shapes, text, fonts, sound etc. It also has support for ActionScript > ~ using the Ming ActionCompiler. Please package this (shared I suppose?) library in the normal way as librswf and librswf-dev. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: swftools - collection of SWF (Flash) manipulation and generation
Hi, Clement nodens Hermann wrote: [ snip ] > ~ It also provide librfxswf, a fully featured library which can be used > ~ for standalone SWF generation. It includes support for bitmaps, buttons, > ~ shapes, text, fonts, sound etc. It also has support for ActionScript > ~ using the Ming ActionCompiler. Please package this (shared I suppose?) library in the normal way as librswf and librswf-dev. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: renaming source package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue? epoch. Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAl7nD+FmQsCSK63MRAgk0AJ41RN1GozPRT3/Pe/E5JG8ucso65wCgg5ek 4Z9/IIkPwcF8xU+zXt6Gk0M= =a3Nr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: renaming source package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Obviously 1.3.3 is less then 20040120, how can I cope with this issue? epoch. Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAl7nD+FmQsCSK63MRAgk0AJ41RN1GozPRT3/Pe/E5JG8ucso65wCgg5ek 4Z9/IIkPwcF8xU+zXt6Gk0M= =a3Nr -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: renaming source package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > The other approach is to ask for removal of the old source package and > upload a new one which generates the same binary packages. This seems to > be the best approach but I'm a bit scared about the transition phase ... I agree. > would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is > removed? Yes. Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAl5aN+FmQsCSK63MRAv7SAJ9f2BZJDaM7w5z61n32Rk9ZgBpUEQCfZtMa q5wp81LqD33+wy4kAjulPM8= =qD8f -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: renaming source package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > The other approach is to ask for removal of the old source package and > upload a new one which generates the same binary packages. This seems to > be the best approach but I'm a bit scared about the transition phase ... I agree. > would it be possible to upload the new package before the old one is > removed? Yes. Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAl5aN+FmQsCSK63MRAv7SAJ9f2BZJDaM7w5z61n32Rk9ZgBpUEQCfZtMa q5wp81LqD33+wy4kAjulPM8= =qD8f -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with Files section in .changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi. Steffen Nissen wrote: > Tried to build it with pbuilder, but still the same problem. Am I doing > something wrong? You probably are missing an appropriate Section: field for the source part (the first one) of your debian/control file..) Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAgDZL+FmQsCSK63MRAmRGAJsFTuJD/IsOPjmZXJhS0B1Jom9wawCeNrJQ fV5TMGASlD4/+1cVC0Fn4Wc= =TQlD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Problem with Files section in .changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi. Steffen Nissen wrote: > Tried to build it with pbuilder, but still the same problem. Am I doing > something wrong? You probably are missing an appropriate Section: field for the source part (the first one) of your debian/control file..) Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAgDZL+FmQsCSK63MRAmRGAJsFTuJD/IsOPjmZXJhS0B1Jom9wawCeNrJQ fV5TMGASlD4/+1cVC0Fn4Wc= =TQlD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Make me understand the bug system better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Ali Bombali wrote: > The right way to do this is to use the X-Debbugs-CC header. Add a line like > this to your message's mail header (not to the pseudo header with the > package field): > > X-Debbugs-CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Could someone give me a example of this ? How do I do this the proper way? > If not in the pseido header field, then where? In the "normal" mail headers. e.g. From: foo To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Bcc: Subject: bar Reply-To: X-Debbugs-Cc: baz If your MUA doesn't let you edit it *shrugs*, get one which supports it... Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAZZX6+FmQsCSK63MRAq/gAJ0UFvU6NLJTW+lv90rgF+ZMla38dwCeP6vD kKQC6LPCR7ssRLTLwaAOiDI= =5SOc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Make me understand the bug system better.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Ali Bombali wrote: > The right way to do this is to use the X-Debbugs-CC header. Add a line like > this to your message's mail header (not to the pseudo header with the > package field): > > X-Debbugs-CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Could someone give me a example of this ? How do I do this the proper way? > If not in the pseido header field, then where? In the "normal" mail headers. e.g. From: foo To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Bcc: Subject: bar Reply-To: X-Debbugs-Cc: baz If your MUA doesn't let you edit it *shrugs*, get one which supports it... Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAZZX6+FmQsCSK63MRAq/gAJ0UFvU6NLJTW+lv90rgF+ZMla38dwCeP6vD kKQC6LPCR7ssRLTLwaAOiDI= =5SOc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [ read http://learn.to.quote ] Hi, elijah wright wrote: > frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in > your email client? it corrupts the screen state in pine EVERY time i get > one of your email messages... mutt doesn't get corrupted, but it shows me > a big fat questionmark instead of the letter between "K" and "s" in your > last name... i see that your mails are coming across as latin-1 encoded - > is whatever the second letter of your name is really in that charset? Yes, the ü is as every german umlaut in latin-1. > alternatively, can someone suggest a solution to the screen corruption? i > think what might be happening is that the letter in question is taking two > cells on the screen instead of the ONE that it should take up... don't use pine? :) i Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAXyXK+FmQsCSK63MRApDrAJ9izysSXYWWH9r8v20eBhdBvdFqPwCfdFyb CwKbmX6hXZYyXQtFP7KuUbo= =uVfK -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Should I always clean in debian/rules before making binary?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [ read http://learn.to.quote ] Hi, elijah wright wrote: > frank, can i beg you to doublecheck the way your last name is encoded in > your email client? it corrupts the screen state in pine EVERY time i get > one of your email messages... mutt doesn't get corrupted, but it shows me > a big fat questionmark instead of the letter between "K" and "s" in your > last name... i see that your mails are coming across as latin-1 encoded - > is whatever the second letter of your name is really in that charset? Yes, the ü is as every german umlaut in latin-1. > alternatively, can someone suggest a solution to the screen corruption? i > think what might be happening is that the letter in question is taking two > cells on the screen instead of the ONE that it should take up... don't use pine? :) i Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAXyXK+FmQsCSK63MRApDrAJ9izysSXYWWH9r8v20eBhdBvdFqPwCfdFyb CwKbmX6hXZYyXQtFP7KuUbo= =uVfK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: > Thanks. Now revision 3 is on sf. > > I must admit that I skipped the NMU chapter. But still I do not find such > a statement that dots in debian revision are reserved. Chapter 5.11.4.1 of > the developers-reference says "should add a new minor version number". > Does this imply that a minor version number may not exist before? When the previous version was a Maintainer upload, yes. -2 -> NMU is -2.1 -2.1 (previous NMU) -> next NMU is -2.2 Anyhow, besides the fact I don't like your changelog entry for -2.1 ( *" Fix packaging problem" - which? I know, but changelog is for documenting the actual changes) i'll see over this, the package otherwise is ok and uploaded. Please write better changelog entries next time, though... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: > Thanks. Now revision 3 is on sf. > > I must admit that I skipped the NMU chapter. But still I do not find such > a statement that dots in debian revision are reserved. Chapter 5.11.4.1 of > the developers-reference says "should add a new minor version number". > Does this imply that a minor version number may not exist before? When the previous version was a Maintainer upload, yes. -2 -> NMU is -2.1 -2.1 (previous NMU) -> next NMU is -2.2 Anyhow, besides the fact I don't like your changelog entry for -2.1 ( *" Fix packaging problem" - which? I know, but changelog is for documenting the actual changes) i'll see over this, the package otherwise is ok and uploaded. Please write better changelog entries next time, though... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: > That something was time passing by :) To create all the files I wrote a > small script which created a orig.tar.gz and calls dpkg-source -b etc. > Unfortunately I made it recreate the orig.tar.gz for each run, resulting > in different time stamps inside the tar and slightly different > compression. Now I adapted my script to keep an existing orig.tar.gz, > created a new debian revision 2.1, and uploaded to sf. Argh. This is just plainly _wrong_. Read policy and developers reference about versioning what -2.1 actually means... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: > That something was time passing by :) To create all the files I wrote a > small script which created a orig.tar.gz and calls dpkg-source -b etc. > Unfortunately I made it recreate the orig.tar.gz for each run, resulting > in different time stamps inside the tar and slightly different > compression. Now I adapted my script to keep an existing orig.tar.gz, > created a new debian revision 2.1, and uploaded to sf. Argh. This is just plainly _wrong_. Read policy and developers reference about versioning what -2.1 actually means... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: > > W: fig2sxd source: newer-standards-version 3.6.0 > > I cannot reproduce this. I have installed lintian 1.22.9, but it does not > give this warning. How do you get this? Anyway, after reading the > changelog for debian-policy I decided to put Standards-Version: 3.6.1.0 > into debain/control. oh, this is just a lintin buosity. it simly does not know about newer Standards-Version's: You should have this with 1.22.9... weird.. Anyhow, it's just a W:... > > E: fig2sxd: no-copyright-file > > > > And really, it isn't installed. Why have you commented dh_installdocs? > > Well, this is a good question! I think I thought it was going to try to > install some documentation, which does not exist except for the man page; > I did not think of the copyright file. Anyway, it's uncommented again. > > I put the files to sourceforge again. I also signed them now - am I > supposed to do that? To me it seems quite useless now, as even if I would > make the public key accessible, nobody knows that it's mine. well, it doesn't hurt.. Although a public key not accessible doesn't exactly make much sense. ;) And gpg already shows the uid etc so verify the signature would work when the key is on a keyserver or somesuch. Anyway... $ dpkg-source -x fig2sxd_0.10-2.dsc dpkg-source: error: file fig2sxd_0.10.orig.tar.gz has size 20465 instead of expected 20466 Something happened so that the .dsc contains the wrong value... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: > > W: fig2sxd source: newer-standards-version 3.6.0 > > I cannot reproduce this. I have installed lintian 1.22.9, but it does not > give this warning. How do you get this? Anyway, after reading the > changelog for debian-policy I decided to put Standards-Version: 3.6.1.0 > into debain/control. oh, this is just a lintin buosity. it simly does not know about newer Standards-Version's: You should have this with 1.22.9... weird.. Anyhow, it's just a W:... > > E: fig2sxd: no-copyright-file > > > > And really, it isn't installed. Why have you commented dh_installdocs? > > Well, this is a good question! I think I thought it was going to try to > install some documentation, which does not exist except for the man page; > I did not think of the copyright file. Anyway, it's uncommented again. > > I put the files to sourceforge again. I also signed them now - am I > supposed to do that? To me it seems quite useless now, as even if I would > make the public key accessible, nobody knows that it's mine. well, it doesn't hurt.. Although a public key not accessible doesn't exactly make much sense. ;) And gpg already shows the uid etc so verify the signature would work when the key is on a keyserver or somesuch. Anyway... $ dpkg-source -x fig2sxd_0.10-2.dsc dpkg-source: error: file fig2sxd_0.10.orig.tar.gz has size 20465 instead of expected 20466 Something happened so that the .dsc contains the wrong value... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: > I tried to follow your advice, and I also converted everything to utf-8 > (basically the ü from my name, which occurs in almost all the files). Of > course, a new upstream version was necessary, now it's 0.10. The files, > including .dsc etc. are available at sourceforge http://fig2sxd.sf.net/ > (as before). dpkg-deb: baue Paket »fig2sxd« in »../fig2sxd_0.10-1_i386.deb«. dpkg-genchanges dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload dpkg-buildpackage: full upload (original source is included) Now running lintian... W: fig2sxd source: newer-standards-version 3.6.0 E: fig2sxd: no-copyright-file Finished running lintian. And really, it isn't installed. Why have you commented dh_installdocs? Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: > I tried to follow your advice, and I also converted everything to utf-8 > (basically the ü from my name, which occurs in almost all the files). Of > course, a new upstream version was necessary, now it's 0.10. The files, > including .dsc etc. are available at sourceforge http://fig2sxd.sf.net/ > (as before). dpkg-deb: baue Paket »fig2sxd« in »../fig2sxd_0.10-1_i386.deb«. dpkg-genchanges dpkg-genchanges: including full source code in upload dpkg-buildpackage: full upload (original source is included) Now running lintian... W: fig2sxd source: newer-standards-version 3.6.0 E: fig2sxd: no-copyright-file Finished running lintian. And really, it isn't installed. Why have you commented dh_installdocs? Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Rene Engelhard wrote: > No. Don't package it Debian-native even if you are the upstream. It's > not. What I forgot here: Fix this: dpkg-source: warning: source directory `./fig2sxd' is not - `fig2sxd-0.9a' Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi again, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Alexander Bürger wrote: > > I tried to make a debian package of it; it's small (program, manpage, > > changelog, copyright), but still it's my first package. Lintian does not > > complain. I would be happy if someone could check and sponsor my package. > > It is available at http://fig2sxd.sf.net/. > > There is juyt the _i386.deb. For sponsoring, you need to give us thze > source, too (the .dsc and .diff.gz. The orig.tar.gz too, although it > should be the same ad the "normal" tar.gz I just fetched your .tar.gz from the site and noticed there is a debian/ already in it and the changelog is Debian-native. No. Don't package it Debian-native even if you are the upstream. It's not. Another points: 1) libz-dev is only a virtual packge: make that zlib1g-dev | libz-dev or kick that libz-dev shit out in favour of zlib1g-dev... 2) It's not compiled with -g. Compile with -g. 3) it does not support noopt in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. Another (minor) point: 4) remove those superfluous comments from debian/rules. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Rene Engelhard wrote: > No. Don't package it Debian-native even if you are the upstream. It's > not. What I forgot here: Fix this: dpkg-source: warning: source directory `./fig2sxd' is not - `fig2sxd-0.9a' Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi again, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Alexander Bürger wrote: > > I tried to make a debian package of it; it's small (program, manpage, > > changelog, copyright), but still it's my first package. Lintian does not > > complain. I would be happy if someone could check and sponsor my package. > > It is available at http://fig2sxd.sf.net/. > > There is juyt the _i386.deb. For sponsoring, you need to give us thze > source, too (the .dsc and .diff.gz. The orig.tar.gz too, although it > should be the same ad the "normal" tar.gz I just fetched your .tar.gz from the site and noticed there is a debian/ already in it and the changelog is Debian-native. No. Don't package it Debian-native even if you are the upstream. It's not. Another points: 1) libz-dev is only a virtual packge: make that zlib1g-dev | libz-dev or kick that libz-dev shit out in favour of zlib1g-dev... 2) It's not compiled with -g. Compile with -g. 3) it does not support noopt in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. Another (minor) point: 4) remove those superfluous comments from debian/rules. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: > I tried to make a debian package of it; it's small (program, manpage, > changelog, copyright), but still it's my first package. Lintian does not > complain. I would be happy if someone could check and sponsor my package. > It is available at http://fig2sxd.sf.net/. There is juyt the _i386.deb. For sponsoring, you need to give us thze source, too (the .dsc and .diff.gz. The orig.tar.gz too, although it should be the same ad the "normal" tar.gz Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: fig2sxd
Hi, Alexander Bürger wrote: > I tried to make a debian package of it; it's small (program, manpage, > changelog, copyright), but still it's my first package. Lintian does not > complain. I would be happy if someone could check and sponsor my package. > It is available at http://fig2sxd.sf.net/. There is juyt the _i386.deb. For sponsoring, you need to give us thze source, too (the .dsc and .diff.gz. The orig.tar.gz too, although it should be the same ad the "normal" tar.gz Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS(3): kdiff3 - compares and merges 2 or 3 files or directories
Hi, Eike zyro Sauer wrote: > (*) My former sponsor seems to be MIA (Rene, are you out there?). *raises hand* :) Yes. I am. And I am not MIA. I just forgot you :/ Grüße/Regards, René P.S: Get a MUA so you can cosspost rightly or let it be... -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS(3): kdiff3 - compares and merges 2 or 3 files or directories
Hi, Eike zyro Sauer wrote: > (*) My former sponsor seems to be MIA (Rene, are you out there?). *raises hand* :) Yes. I am. And I am not MIA. I just forgot you :/ Grüße/Regards, René P.S: Get a MUA so you can cosspost rightly or let it be... -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: pbuilder ${shlibs:Depends} yields libc6-2.2.4-4 ???
Hi, Bob Proulx wrote: > dpkg-deb --info /var/cache/pbuilder/result/*.deb |grep Depends: >Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) > > So then in an attempt to resolve this I add DISTRIBUTION=woody to my Why? This libc6 Depends: is fully correct for builds on woody... > Why does building a package with pbuilder generate the seemingly wrong > version for Depends: of 2.2.4-4 regarldless that 2.2.5-11.5 is the > installed library? What am I doing wrong? Nothing. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo chroot chroots/stable cat /var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6.shlibs libm 6 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libc 6 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) /lib/ld-linux 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) ld-linux 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libdl 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libutil 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libresolv 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_files 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_dns 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_compat 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_nis 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_nisplus 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_ldap 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_hesiod 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnsl 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libdb 2 libcrypt 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libBrokenLocale 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) librt 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libanl 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libpthread 0 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libthread_db 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: pbuilder ${shlibs:Depends} yields libc6-2.2.4-4 ???
Hi, Bob Proulx wrote: > dpkg-deb --info /var/cache/pbuilder/result/*.deb |grep Depends: >Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) > > So then in an attempt to resolve this I add DISTRIBUTION=woody to my Why? This libc6 Depends: is fully correct for builds on woody... > Why does building a package with pbuilder generate the seemingly wrong > version for Depends: of 2.2.4-4 regarldless that 2.2.5-11.5 is the > installed library? What am I doing wrong? Nothing. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo chroot chroots/stable cat /var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6.shlibs libm 6 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libc 6 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) /lib/ld-linux 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) ld-linux 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libdl 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libutil 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libresolv 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_files 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_dns 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_compat 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_nis 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_nisplus 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_ldap 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnss_hesiod 2 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libnsl 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libdb 2 libcrypt 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libBrokenLocale 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) librt 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libanl 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libpthread 0 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) libthread_db 1 libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4) Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS(2): kdiff3 - compares and merges 2 or 3 files or directories
Hi, Eike zyro Sauer wrote: > I'm still looking for someone to test and upload the following package. [ snip ] replied to him on -qt-kde where he posted that request too... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS(2): kdiff3 - compares and merges 2 or 3 files or directories
Hi, Eike zyro Sauer wrote: > I'm still looking for someone to test and upload the following package. [ snip ] replied to him on -qt-kde where he posted that request too... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Adopting orphaned packages (axkit and relatives)
Hi, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > I am currently running AxKit on woody + backports of many packages on > which it depends. If I understand correctly, I will need to build on > sarge (or sid?) in order to produce a package fit for upload. Should I clean sid. > begin by setting up a sarge system, and if so, what is the best procedure > currently? (I would default to x86 hardware since I have several handy, Well, what you want. A full system, chroot, pbuilder... > but I could also set up a Sparc if that's better.) Should I install woody well, your decision. > and then upgrade, or should I try out the new debian-installer? And once doesn't matter. > I have a sarge system, are there packages I should pin before proceeding > on to sid, or is it the other way around (upgrade only selected packages > to sid)? Once you have a sarge system you need to upgrade again to sid :P Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Adopting orphaned packages (axkit and relatives)
Hi, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > I am currently running AxKit on woody + backports of many packages on > which it depends. If I understand correctly, I will need to build on > sarge (or sid?) in order to produce a package fit for upload. Should I clean sid. > begin by setting up a sarge system, and if so, what is the best procedure > currently? (I would default to x86 hardware since I have several handy, Well, what you want. A full system, chroot, pbuilder... > but I could also set up a Sparc if that's better.) Should I install woody well, your decision. > and then upgrade, or should I try out the new debian-installer? And once doesn't matter. > I have a sarge system, are there packages I should pin before proceeding > on to sid, or is it the other way around (upgrade only selected packages > to sid)? Once you have a sarge system you need to upgrade again to sid :P Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Newly created packages from the wishlist
Ky Vinh Tran Luu wrote: > that mentors are not too busy preparing for the sid release. There won't be a sid release ever SCNR, Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpPTD5bPor8d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Newly created packages from the wishlist
Ky Vinh Tran Luu wrote: > that mentors are not too busy preparing for the sid release. There won't be a sid release ever SCNR, Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: ispell-lt -- Lithuanian dictionaries
Hi, K?stutis Bili?nas wrote: > I'm hoping to find a sponsor for the ispell-lt package that I've > created (the ITP is bug #206290). [ snip ] I'll check them, upload them or pester you with corrections. Beware, I wrote the myspell policy... :) Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpfMjBws10tU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: ispell-lt -- Lithuanian dictionaries
Hi, K?stutis Bili?nas wrote: > I'm hoping to find a sponsor for the ispell-lt package that I've > created (the ITP is bug #206290). [ snip ] I'll check them, upload them or pester you with corrections. Beware, I wrote the myspell policy... :) Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sponsor vs. Developer Process?
Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:22:20PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > You won't be approved with no package in the archive. > > bullshit > > Unless things have changed in the 18 months or so I've been a DD. I had no > packages sponsored or otherwise in the archive for about the first month or > so after I got my account. Call me a slow starter, if you will. It _is_ so. Definitely. We talked with tbm about it who said that, too. He should know.. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpp1rgOZ0lqE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sponsor vs. Developer Process?
Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:22:20PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > You won't be approved with no package in the archive. > > bullshit > > Unless things have changed in the 18 months or so I've been a DD. I had no > packages sponsored or otherwise in the archive for about the first month or > so after I got my account. Call me a slow starter, if you will. It _is_ so. Definitely. We talked with tbm about it who said that, too. He should know.. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: pose - Palm OS Emulator (5th -and last- try)
Hi, Marcin Orlowski wrote: > On Sunday of July 27 2003 20:09, Juan Manuel García Molina wrote: > > > Over a month ago, pose package was orphaned. I'd like to take care of it, > > so I placed an ITA on wnpp. I've been working for a while in this package, > > but I can't upload it because I'm not yet a Debian Developer. It's my 5th > > try to get an sponsor, so if this time noone wants to sponsor the package, > > I'll suppose it is not interesting enough to remain in Debian. So, my > > question is: would you like to upload pose into Debian repository? Thanks. > > Excuse me for speaking up here, but I was watching Juan's tries for some time, > and noone gave him even "no". I am not trying to judge here, especially you > all doing your Debian work in own spare time, but doesn't this ring a bell > that there is something in the whole procedure that simply does not work? No, > I can fully understand that noone of DD subscribed here may be personally not > interested in non mainstream app like Pose, but since package needs a mentor > no matter how mainstream it is, there should be a better way than just "good Or don't have the time to check the package... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgplGds6eHNTZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sponsor vs. Developer Process?
Hi, Adam Kessel wrote: > I am wondering if it makes sense to try to find a sponsor to upload my > package now, or wait to go through the entire DD process before trying to > include salonify in Debian, or if it really matters which way I go? I yes. You won't be approved with no package in the archive. > understand it can take many months to become a DD, but also it appears > that it might take many months to find a sponsor. Not really. It depends whether a DD has time and interest in the package. As others said alreday, the hundred image gallery program isn't _that_ interesting... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgprIfg1PSh3r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: pose - Palm OS Emulator (5th -and last- try)
Hi, Marcin Orlowski wrote: > On Sunday of July 27 2003 20:09, Juan Manuel García Molina wrote: > > > Over a month ago, pose package was orphaned. I'd like to take care of it, > > so I placed an ITA on wnpp. I've been working for a while in this package, > > but I can't upload it because I'm not yet a Debian Developer. It's my 5th > > try to get an sponsor, so if this time noone wants to sponsor the package, > > I'll suppose it is not interesting enough to remain in Debian. So, my > > question is: would you like to upload pose into Debian repository? Thanks. > > Excuse me for speaking up here, but I was watching Juan's tries for some time, > and noone gave him even "no". I am not trying to judge here, especially you > all doing your Debian work in own spare time, but doesn't this ring a bell > that there is something in the whole procedure that simply does not work? No, > I can fully understand that noone of DD subscribed here may be personally not > interested in non mainstream app like Pose, but since package needs a mentor > no matter how mainstream it is, there should be a better way than just "good Or don't have the time to check the package... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sponsor vs. Developer Process?
Hi, Adam Kessel wrote: > I am wondering if it makes sense to try to find a sponsor to upload my > package now, or wait to go through the entire DD process before trying to > include salonify in Debian, or if it really matters which way I go? I yes. You won't be approved with no package in the archive. > understand it can take many months to become a DD, but also it appears > that it might take many months to find a sponsor. Not really. It depends whether a DD has time and interest in the package. As others said alreday, the hundred image gallery program isn't _that_ interesting... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Some packages to you for testing
Hi, Jaime Robles wrote: > I have packaged two KDE apps. > KWifimanager, a WIFI card configuration program. > KImageMapEditor, a html image map editor. > > I would like you to test them and check for bugs, errors and so on. kimagemapeditor is already in the archive, currently maintained by Joerg Jasper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There's an ITA bug filed from Joerg, which got the last post on Apr 1[1]: in which Sebastian Muszynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> stated his wants to ITA it. Have you contacted him? (Cc'ing both) Regards, René [1] April's fool? :-) -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Some packages to you for testing
Hi, Jaime Robles wrote: > I have packaged two KDE apps. > KWifimanager, a WIFI card configuration program. > KImageMapEditor, a html image map editor. > > I would like you to test them and check for bugs, errors and so on. kimagemapeditor is already in the archive, currently maintained by Joerg Jasper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There's an ITA bug filed from Joerg, which got the last post on Apr 1[1]: in which Sebastian Muszynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> stated his wants to ITA it. Have you contacted him? (Cc'ing both) Regards, René [1] April's fool? :-) -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpB7ARKoCzXA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Machine access for NM Applicants.
Hi, Leo Costela Antunes wrote: > The buildd-logs[1] don't provide enough debug information? In this case not. In many other cases also not... Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpve7BKogxUG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Machine access for NM Applicants.
Hi, Leo Costela Antunes wrote: > The buildd-logs[1] don't provide enough debug information? In this case not. In many other cases also not... Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Debian Mentors Project
Hi, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > Really nice job but the first side effect is already there: > > Package: icaclient > Version: 6.30-2 > Priority: optional > Section: net > Maintainer: Christoph Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Depends: libxaw7 And that looks like it is f*cked. Is this Depends: done manually? I do not thing dpkg-shlibdeps did that. Where is libc6? > I think upload must be moderated somehow. Even the uploader himself claim > that he is unsure about licence of the product. Jup. That is bad. Christoph: setzen, sechs :) Regards, Rene -- .''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpudDRoJfeiw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: lintian and linda
Holger Kubiak wrote: > There is an 3.5.6-entry in debian/control. How can I test if my package > complies 3.5.9.0? debian-policy package. upgrading-checklist.txt > BTW: On which packages should I use linda and lintian? In the manpage for > lintian I found: > >If you specify a .changes file, Lintian will process all packages >listed in that file. > > I could not find an analogously statement for linda. linda does that too. Regards, Rene -- .''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpOP9ZxV0qkx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lintian error when packaging an app.
Hi, Jaime Robles wrote: > I am having some problems when packaging an application (KDE app): > == > E: klog: symlink-should-be-relative usr/share/doc/kde/HTML/en/klog/common > /usr/share/doc/kde/HTML/en/common > E: klog: package-has-a-duplicate-relation xlibs (>> 4.1.0), xlibs (>> 4.2.0) > == > > I think i don't have to pay atention to the second error but it is the first Right. > time i get the first one... > What is to be done to solve that problem? > I have seen the lintian reports and MANY kde apps seems to suffer the same > error in lintian... > http://lintian.debian.org/reports/Tsymlink-should-be-relative.html Yes. That's why am ignoring it right now... Regards, Rene -- .''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpeAK2MgEyWZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: openoffice.org- l10n, spellcheck ,help -hu
BaliHB wrote: > I looking for a sponsor for 3 packages. > openoffice.org-l10n-hu > openoffice.org-spellcheck-hu > openoffice.org-help-hu > > 4 more info check: > https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/ooodeb-hu/ For openoffice.org-spellcheck-hu it my be OK, but at the moment we are deploying a new policy for them, so please be patient. For the other two, please contact us (the Debian OpenOffice.org Team on debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org or #debian-oo on IRC so we can look at them. It would be good to develop a patch to include -l10n-hu into the pfficial source to get it submitted for OpenOffice.org's upstream later...) !! Nobody please sponsor these packages now !! Regards, Rene -- .''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 pgpYkRt2HREZT.pgp Description: PGP signature
