Re: RFS: hexec (second try)
George Danchev wrote: I have the impression that I've left some impression that I had intended to sponsor that package. Just to let prospective sponsors know that they are welcome to review and probably upload it, if found to be useful for anyone. Currently I don't any notion how it could be useful for me. But, yes the package seems to be in good shape and I hope the disambiguity is now in place and human time not wasted ;-) Perhaps some `salt' provided by Alexander would help prospective sponsors to better understand and find it useful. [1] well, as we all know, the initial upload is not the end of the story Thanks for this clarification George. What I will do in the next days/weeks is to prepare some more documentation and usage examples for hexec. I understand that it's hard to see any possible usage in the package if there is no good documentation and no examples available ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: hexec (second try)
On Tuesday 02 December 2008 22:46:47 Alexander Block wrote: Hello, hexec - a tool to intercept/hook and change program calls - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/hexec - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/hexec/hexec_0.2.1-1.dsc I have the impression that I've left some impression that I had intended to sponsor that package. Just to let prospective sponsors know that they are welcome to review and probably upload it, if found to be useful for anyone. Currently I don't any notion how it could be useful for me. But, yes the package seems to be in good shape and I hope the disambiguity is now in place and human time not wasted ;-) Perhaps some `salt' provided by Alexander would help prospective sponsors to better understand and find it useful. [1] well, as we all know, the initial upload is not the end of the story. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: hexec (second try)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package hexec. Package name: hexec Version : 0.2.1-1 Upstream Author : Alexander Block [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/hexec/ License : GPL Section : devel It builds these binary packages: hexec - a tool to intercept/hook and change program calls The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 507155 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/hexec - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/h/hexec/hexec_0.2.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Btw, sorry for the confusion due to my last RFS. Kind regards Alexander Block -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: hexec
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package hexec. Package name: hexec Version : 0.2.0-1 Upstream Author : Alexander Block [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/hexec/ License : GPL Section : devel It builds these binary packages: hexec - The hexec tool itself libhexec-common - Shared library for hexec internal use libhexec-hook - Shared library that implements the exec hooking The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 507155 The package can be found on my server: - URL: http://blocksoftware.net/hexec_0.2.0-1/ I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Alexander Block -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: hexec
On Monday 01 December 2008 16:04:33 Alexander Block wrote: Hi, Hm, interesting approach. Package looks good to me, except that it builds one binary package, not three, which is fine. Adding a watch file would be good idea too, regardless you are both upstream and debian maintainer of that package, because in that case your users (Debian External Health Status - DEHS included) would be able to catch your debian packaging lagging your upstream releases, if any ;-) It builds these binary packages: hexec - The hexec tool itself libhexec-common - Shared library for hexec internal use libhexec-hook - Shared library that implements the exec hooking These are leftovers, right ? I see no good reason to split two separate runtime library packages if your `application' package (built from the same source package) needs them both to operate as well. Or these are just long forgotten bits from a library/dev split attempt ? If you intend to distibute a) separate runtime `library' packages (the shared library) and b) separate buildtime `development' packages (headers and static library) then it might make any sense to leave your users some options to choose which of these they would need and not bother with the rest, i.e. they might want to build depend on libhook-dev, but not on libfoo-dev (produced from the same source package). That gains you almost nothing, but anyway. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: hexec
Hi, thanks for your feedback. On Monday 01 December 2008 16:04:33 Alexander Block wrote: Hi, Hm, interesting approach. Package looks good to me, except that it builds one binary package, not three, which is fine. Adding a watch file would be good idea too, regardless you are both upstream and debian maintainer of that package, because in that case your users (Debian External Health Status - DEHS included) would be able to catch your debian packaging lagging your upstream releases, if any ;-) I will add the watch file today or tomorrow. I seem to be confused with the binary listing in the RFS... As I understand it now, I have to list the same packages as listed in the debian/control? I thought this had to be a list of all executables and *.so files ;-) These are leftovers, right ? I see no good reason to split two separate runtime library packages if your `application' package (built from the same source package) needs them both to operate as well. Or these are just long forgotten bits from a library/dev split attempt ? If you intend to distibute a) separate runtime `library' packages (the shared library) and b) separate buildtime `development' packages (headers and static library) then it might make any sense to leave your users some options to choose which of these they would need and not bother with the rest, i.e. they might want to build depend on libhook-dev, but not on libfoo-dev (produced from the same source package). That gains you almost nothing, but anyway. Nope, they are not leftovers. Especially libhexec-hook.so is required for the exec hooking, which is based on LD_PRELOAD and always needs a shared library. I used libhexec-common.so to share code between the LD_PRELOAD .so and the command line tool (hexec). I could possibly remove the need of libhexec-common.so and change it to be a static library, do you think this is the better solution? Btw, there will never be a need for a -dev package, as the libraries are really only internally useful. I think I should maybe create a new package with the suggested modifications (I also got some feedback on IRC and private messages), so the current package should not be uploaded. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: hexec
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:04:33PM +0100, Alexander Block wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package hexec. Package name: hexec Version : 0.2.0-1 Upstream Author : Alexander Block [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/hexec/ License : GPL Section : devel It builds these binary packages: hexec - The hexec tool itself That's a really crap short description. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: hexec
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It builds these binary packages: hexec - The hexec tool itself That's a really crap short description. Quite. Please read the developers reference: http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-desc-basics -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
