Re: Help building unstable git source packages for buster to get missing features ?
On 8/25/19, Daniel Rossi wrote: > I've tried to figure out this myself, but have been forced here. I need > to enable a feature which was added in git but not packaged for buster > yet, I have exactly the same problem with Ubuntu Bionic. I would like to > make unstable packages of this for releasing to raspberry PI also. Are you aware of the Debian-Mentors' list, *also*? Meaning... not trying to shoo' you away. Am just thinking that your "make unstable packages of this for releasing" along with your references to e.g. "gbp" and cloning Salsa are their kind of thing: https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/ Well, maybe kinda-sorta because I've seen Debian-User members seem to say that "Raspbian" is a derivative of its own, too. https://www.raspbian.org/RaspbianTeam In checking out that webpage myself, I circled back around to Debian's own Debian-ARM listserv: https://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/ Good luck, and have fun! Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * runs with birdseed *
Help building unstable git source packages for buster to get missing features ?
I've tried to figure out this myself, but have been forced here. I need to enable a feature which was added in git but not packaged for buster yet, I have exactly the same problem with Ubuntu Bionic. I would like to make unstable packages of this for releasing to raspberry PI also. I've tried every method possible with failures. I've looked at possibly 1000 pages of documentation, but it's not explanatory enough with zero detailed command examples. What is the process for starts of building this repository, via git-pbuilder with the dependancies installed in git-pbuilder ? I get dependancy issues even after installing them. I dont want the dependancies stored in the system, I will have to modify the rules, as I am reducing what is installed with custom configure args. This is my process so far. git clone https://salsa.debian.org/gstreamer-team/gstreamer1.0.git sudo apt install git-buildpackage cowbuilder debian-archive-keyring DIST=buster git-pbuilder create DIST=buster git-pbuilder login --save-after-login apt-get install cdbs gnome-pkg-tools libgmp3-dev libgsl-dev libgsl0-dev libgirepository1.0-dev libcap-dev eatmydata exit cd gstreamer1.0 gbp buildpackage --git-tarball-dir=$PWD --git-ignore-new --git-no-create-orig --git-pbuilder --git-dist=buster I get this gbp:info: Building with (cowbuilder) for buster gbp:info: Performing the build Building with cowbuilder for distribution buster W: /home/danielr/.pbuilderrc does not exist I: using cowbuilder as pbuilder dpkg-checkbuilddeps: error: Unmet build dependencies: cdbs (>= 0.4.93~) gnome-pkg-tools (>= 0.7) gtk-doc-tools (>= 1.12) zlib1g-dev (>= 1:1.1.4) libglib2.0-dev (>= 2.40) libgmp-dev | libgmp3-dev libgsl-dev | libgsl0-dev pkg-config (>= 0.11.0) bison (>= 1:2.4) flex (>= 2.5.34) perl-doc libgirepository1.0-dev (>= 0.9.12-4~) gobject-introspection (>= 0.9.12-4~) libcap-dev W: Unmet build-dependency in source debian/rules:7: /usr/share/gnome-pkg-tools/1/rules/clean-la.mk: No such file or directory Im assuming I need some files on my system not in the chroot sudo apt-get install cdbs gnome-pkg-tools Run it again gbp buildpackage --git-tarball-dir=$PWD --git-ignore-new --git-no-create-orig --git-pbuilder --git-dist=buster gbp:debug: ['git', 'rev-parse', '--show-cdup'] gbp:debug: ['git', 'rev-parse', '--is-bare-repository'] gbp:debug: ['git', 'rev-parse', '--git-dir'] gbp:debug: /bin/true [] [] gbp:debug: ['git', 'symbolic-ref', 'HEAD'] gbp:debug: ['git', 'show-ref', 'refs/heads/master'] gbp:info: Building with (cowbuilder) for buster gbp:info: Performing the build gbp:debug: git-pbuilder [] [] Building with cowbuilder for distribution buster W: /home/danielr/.pbuilderrc does not exist I: using cowbuilder as pbuilder dpkg-checkbuilddeps: error: Unmet build dependencies: gtk-doc-tools (>= 1.12) zlib1g-dev (>= 1:1.1.4) libglib2.0-dev (>= 2.40) libgmp-dev | libgmp3-dev libgsl-dev | libgsl0-dev pkg-config (>= 0.11.0) bison (>= 1:2.4) flex (>= 2.5.34) perl-doc libgirepository1.0-dev (>= 0.9.12-4~) gobject-introspection (>= 0.9.12-4~) libcap-dev W: Unmet build-dependency in source CDBS WARNING: copyright-check disabled - touch debian/copyright_hints to enable. rm -f debian/control cat debian/control.in | \ sed 's/@GST_VERSION@/1.16.0/g' | \ sed 's/@GST_PKGNAME@/gstreamer1.0/g' | \ sed 's/@GST_ABI@/1.0/g' | \ sed 's/@GST_LIB_PREFIX@/libgstreamer1.0/g' | \ sed 's/@GST_LIB@/libgstreamer1.0-0/g' | \ sed 's/@GST_LIB_DEV@/libgstreamer1.0-dev/g' \ > debian/control test -x debian/rules rm -f debian/stamp-makefile-build debian/stamp-makefile-install /usr/bin/make -C . -k distclean make[1]: Entering directory '/home/danielr/Downloads/gstreamer/gstreamer1.0' make[1]: *** No rule to make target 'distclean'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/danielr/Downloads/gstreamer/gstreamer1.0' make: [/usr/share/cdbs/1/class/makefile.mk:91: makefile-clean] Error 2 (ignored) rm -f debian/stamp-makefile-check rm -f debian/stamp-autotools rmdir --ignore-fail-on-non-empty . rmdir: failed to remove '.': Invalid argument make: [/usr/share/cdbs/1/class/autotools.mk:64: makefile-clean] Error 1 (ignored) set -e; if test -e debian/autoreconf.before; then \ dh_autoreconf_clean ; \ fi dh_clean rm -f debian/stamp-autotools-files rm -f debian/copyright_newhints rm -f debian/cdbs-install-list debian/cdbs-package-list debian/stamp-copyright-check rm -rf "debian/upstream-cruft" rm -f debian/stamp-upstream-cruft for f in debian/libgstreamer1.0-0.install debian/libgstreamer1.0-0.symbols debian/libgstreamer1.0-0.postinst debian/libgstreamer1.0-dev.install debian/libgstreamer1.0-dev.preinst debian/libgstreamer1.0-dev.postrm debian/gstreamer1.0-doc.install debian/gstreamer1.0-doc.links debian/gstreamer1.0-tools.install debian/gstreamer1.0-tools.links debian/gstreamer1.0-tools.manpages debian/gir1.2-gstreamer-1.0.install; do \ rm -f $f; \ done rm -f debian/shlibs.local rm
Re: Using source packages to bring some programs up to latest version
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:11:27PM +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote: > The only thing I'd add here is that in this case, I'd create a dummy > Debian package with no contents but an appropriate version number and > dependencies, and install it, so the system knows it is there and the > dependent libraries are depended on. This way when upgrades happen APT > will tell you if there is going to be a problem upgrading the libraries > instead of just doing it and breaking the package you built from source. Not a bad idea. You can use equivs to achieve this (although equivs could do with a rewrite IMHO) -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using source packages to bring some programs up to latest version
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 08:51:10AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:51:20AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > No, stop. The second step if there is not already a backport is to try > > to backport it yourself. Maybe ask judd in IRC first, whether a backport > > is believed to be *possible*. Sometimes the bot is wrong, but it's a > > starting point. If judd thinks all the dependencies are satisfiable, > > then you can try the backport. > > judd sounds like a useful system, but I disagree that the next step is > necessarily backports. For example, I just recently installed sid's "flatpak" > on a stretch system, and all dependencies were satisfyable from stretch (in > fact, were already installed, from when I installed the version of flatpak in > stretch). So sometimes this is a quick solution. > > If the version in sid had wanted to pull in dependencies from sid, then I > would > have had to make a judgement call as to the impact of that, versus the > inconvenience of building from source. > > > If a backport isn't possible, I would actually prefer to build the package > > normally from upstream source code (./configure; make; sudo make install) > > than to install a binary from testing/unstable onto stable. > > Yes, I think that might actually be easier than wrangling with Debian > packaging, especially if the user is not already familiar with it. > The only thing I'd add here is that in this case, I'd create a dummy Debian package with no contents but an appropriate version number and dependencies, and install it, so the system knows it is there and the dependent libraries are depended on. This way when upgrades happen APT will tell you if there is going to be a problem upgrading the libraries instead of just doing it and breaking the package you built from source. Mark
Re: Using source packages to bring some programs up to latest version
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:51:20AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > No, stop. The second step if there is not already a backport is to try > to backport it yourself. Maybe ask judd in IRC first, whether a backport > is believed to be *possible*. Sometimes the bot is wrong, but it's a > starting point. If judd thinks all the dependencies are satisfiable, > then you can try the backport. judd sounds like a useful system, but I disagree that the next step is necessarily backports. For example, I just recently installed sid's "flatpak" on a stretch system, and all dependencies were satisfyable from stretch (in fact, were already installed, from when I installed the version of flatpak in stretch). So sometimes this is a quick solution. If the version in sid had wanted to pull in dependencies from sid, then I would have had to make a judgement call as to the impact of that, versus the inconvenience of building from source. > If a backport isn't possible, I would actually prefer to build the package > normally from upstream source code (./configure; make; sudo make install) > than to install a binary from testing/unstable onto stable. Yes, I think that might actually be easier than wrangling with Debian packaging, especially if the user is not already familiar with it. -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using source packages to bring some programs up to latest version
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:52:37PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > The best way to achieve this is to use backports, if one exists for the > packages you are interested in. > > Failing that, it's possible that the version of the package in testing or > unstable can be installed on your stable system without pulling in any (or too > many) dependencies from outside stable. No, stop. The second step if there is not already a backport is to try to backport it yourself. Maybe ask judd in IRC first, whether a backport is believed to be *possible*. Sometimes the bot is wrong, but it's a starting point. If judd thinks all the dependencies are satisfiable, then you can try the backport. If a backport isn't possible, I would actually prefer to build the package normally from upstream source code (./configure; make; sudo make install) than to install a binary from testing/unstable onto stable.
Re: Using source packages to bring some programs up to latest version
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:07:48PM -0500, David Niklas wrote: > What I'm trying to do is to avoid running pieces unstable or testing > software (except for the package I asked for (such as nano)), while > still having a few newer packages. The best way to achieve this is to use backports, if one exists for the packages you are interested in. Failing that, it's possible that the version of the package in testing or unstable can be installed on your stable system without pulling in any (or too many) dependencies from outside stable. You need to add testing (and/or unstable) sources to Apt's sources.list *and* set up pinning so that Apt always prefers packages from stable over anything else. Then, you can do something like apt-get install -t testing somepackage or apt-get install somepackage=desired-version Inspect the list of packages that it wants to pull in, and their versions (if you see that in the apt pre-run output, I can't remember) and make a judgement call as to whether you're happy to install them. Finally, if the above isn't satisfactory, you can attempt to build the newer version from source. (I will leave details of that to another email) -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Using source packages to bring some programs up to latest version
Hello, I've used Debian on and off but now I have a pocketchip from https://nextthing.co/ and it uses debian and I'm not about to switch. I follow several projects closely (nano, lynx, a few others), and what I want to do is to tell apt to: 1. Download the latest and greatest source code of version of package X 2. Resolve all dependencies of package X downloading source code 3. Resolve packages that depend on X and download source code 4. Compile sources and install X and dependencies. I realize that several of theses steps may make up one actual command and visa-versa. What I'm trying to do is to avoid running pieces unstable or testing software (except for the package I asked for (such as nano)), while still having a few newer packages. Thanks, David
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
Hi, > > debian-ment...@lists.debian.org. Dominique Dumont wrote: > ok. I'll follow up on that mailing list. Start: https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2015/08/msg00320.html Latest state: https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2015/08/msg00377.html I meanwhile uploaded to http://mentors.debian.net/package/libburn but goofed by uploading a state with debhelper version 9, which produces source packages without warning but fails with debuild -b. debian/control and debian/compat would need a change from "9" back to "8". But i am unsure yet, whether it is possible and acceptable to overwrite the upload by dput -f. > alioth project ... repo ... collab-maint I still have to learn a lot. > IMHO, there's no need for a dedicated team like pkg-libburnia. Using > collab-maint is probably simpler. There is the maintainer team of dvd+rw-tools, cdparanoia, and dvdisaster: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-opt-media-team%40lists.alioth.debian.org I plan to ask for cooperation. Maybe they take the plight of maintaining the Debian infrastructure in exchange for me diagnosing bug reports and uploading fixed packages. But first i need to get libburn and the other two ready for sponsorship. The bug reports of my packages need to be re-arranged, too. Half is attributed to a package which is not in charge to fix the bug. > https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-libburnia/ Not much to see there, indeed. But before we burry this team, i have to ask Mario. Haven't had contact with Simon and Mats for a longer time. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
On Friday 21 August 2015 12:37:44 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > > "All packages must be signed with the GnuPG key" > > > > Either "dpkg-buildpackage without -us -uc" or debsign applied to > > the changes file. > > Will try. And also the proposal to use debuild instead of > dpkg-buildpackage, which i got on debian-ment...@lists.debian.org. ok. I'll follow up on that mailing list. > > That said, you need to decide what to do with pkg-liburnia project on > > alioth. > > Oops. Another construction site ? https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-libburnia/ is the alioth project that used to host liburn packaging team (the one with only one active person ...) > > You can trash it and move your repo to collab-maint or you can > > go on using it. > > I have (or need) a repo at "collab-maint" ? Either a repo as part of libburnia project (but you'll probably be the only team member) or a repo on collab-maint. IMHO, there's no need for a dedicated team like pkg-libburnia. Using collab-maint is probably simpler. > > In the latter case, please, fix the mailing list to > > avoid spams (either moderate the list or block mail for non-subscribers) > > You mean pkg-libburnia-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org ? yes. the archive contains 90% spam. For instance, see this month's archive: https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-libburnia-devel/2015-August/thread.html > How do i get administration power for all this ? George should be able to give you the credentials > And where to learn using that power properly ? Alioth site should contain enough doc. Otherwise ask on mentors list or on IRC. But this won't be needed is the team is to be trashed. > > Team members are listed on alioth in their respective project page. > > For instance: https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-sdl/ > > I fail to find the the equivalent for my packages or the team. > Tried: > https://alioth.debian.org/projects/libburn > https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-libburnia-devel https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-libburnia/ All the best -- https://github.com/dod38fr/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -o- irc: dod at irc.debian.org
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
Hi, Dominique Dumon wrote: > https://ddumont.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/improving-update-of-existing-debian copyright-file/ This will be of help when i expand my work to packages where i am not the upstream. For my own ones i rather seem to know too much about the license situation of their various representations. > > "All packages must be signed with the GnuPG key" > Either "dpkg-buildpackage without -us -uc" or debsign applied to > the changes file. Will try. And also the proposal to use debuild instead of dpkg-buildpackage, which i got on debian-ment...@lists.debian.org. > I quite often use a burner so I can also sponsor your packages. I hope > I won't be the only sponsor as my response time can sometime be very long... The more sponsors the better. I understand Steve is interested because of the Debian installation ISOs. Users of burners might be interested to plug me together with kernel people so that we can tackle the multi-SG_IO performance regression. udev's interference could need some curbing, too. (It's better than with olde hald-addon-storage, though.) > That said, you need to decide what to do with pkg-liburnia project on > alioth. Oops. Another construction site ? > You can trash it and move your repo to collab-maint or you can > go on using it. I have (or need) a repo at "collab-maint" ? > In the latter case, please, fix the mailing list to > avoid spams (either moderate the list or block mail for non-subscribers) You mean pkg-libburnia-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org ? How do i get administration power for all this ? And where to learn using that power properly ? > tracker.debian.org gives a better idea of who maintain a package. > Uploaders show the team members that actively participate in maintenance. https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libburn shows Mario and George, both friends of mine, but too busy. https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/dvd+rw-tools shows the three people whom i believed to never have met in the internet about the topic of DVD burning. But my bug report #713016 shows the work of two of them. With photo. (The mail notification of bugs works or works not, depending on moon phase and constellation of decommissioned satellites.) So i will get even more potential sponsors. :)) > Using a team email in maintainer enable you to have a global > overview of the package status. https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?email=pkg-libburnia-devel%40lists.alioth.debian.org is entirely dedicated to my tarballs. I feel flattered. > Team members are listed on alioth in their respective project page. > For instance: https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-sdl/ I fail to find the the equivalent for my packages or the team. Tried: https://alioth.debian.org/projects/libburn https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-libburnia-devel Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
On Thursday 20 August 2015 01:02:32 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > If it is not too daring, then i would propose this roadmap > for refurbishing the burner corner of Debian: > > - I learn what kind of signing is meant with > http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers > "All packages must be signed with the GnuPG key" > gpg --clearsign ... ? > gpg -o ...sig -u ... ? > dpkg-buildpackage without -us -uc ? > and get my proposals dput'ed to mentors.debian.net. > Hints and examples are welcome. Either "dpkg-buildpackage without -us -uc" or debsign applied to the changes file. > - You become sponsor for me and my packages. Train me like > a space monkey. I am very good with using cheat sheets. > You also show me were to learn managing bug reports. I quite often use a burner so I can also sponsor your packages. I hope I won't be the only sponsor as my response time can sometime be very long... That said, you need to decide what to do with pkg-liburnia project on alioth. You can trash it and move your repo to collab-maint or you can go on using it. In the latter case, please, fix the mailing list to avoid spams (either moderate the list or block mail for non-subscribers) > Are the persons listed as "Maintainers" on > https://packages.debian.org/jessie/libburn4 > https://packages.debian.org/jessie/growisofs > the only team members ? tracker.debian.org gives a better idea of who maintain a package. When a package is maintained by a team, "Maintainers" contains the email address of the team mailing list. Uploaders show the team members that actively participate in maintenance. For instance https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libconfig-model-perl Using a team email in maintainer enable you to have a global overview of the package status. Here's an example for sdl team packages: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-sdl-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org > Is there a member list for teams ? Other than > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams > which does not list them. Team members are listed on alioth in their respective project page. For instance: https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-sdl/ Hope this helps -- https://github.com/dod38fr/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -o- irc: dod at irc.debian.org
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
On Wednesday 19 August 2015 19:38:16 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > I see. The man page effect again. > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html#copyright You can also use "cme update dpkg-copyright" to update debian/copyright file. See [1] for more details. [1] https://ddumont.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/improving-update-of-existing-debiancopyright-file/ All the best -- https://github.com/dod38fr/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -o- irc: dod at irc.debian.org
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
Hi, George Danchev wrote: > I just orphaned the three packages: libburn, libisofs, libisoburn. > The team has been mostly one-man for a couple of years, but eventually I run > out of time, energy, and burning hardware to properly maintain these > packages. I thought you did this already. Else i would have bothered you for consent. Once again, i thank you for covering my stuff since 2006. You were one of my earliest users and you are a good friend. Crossing my fingers that your high-pressure life is more rewarding than it must be exhausting. Steve McIntyre wrote: > I'm more than happy to help get you into Debian here, and I've got > some experience with all these tools already. : -) The man who trusted Debian ISOs on an obscure new producer program. Very courageous just to get rid of the plight to maintain genisoimage. But still not done yet. I'm fighting a who-winks-first contest with 32-bit "powerpc" architecture and its need for Apple's HFS. Hopefully it will be burried before i get bored enough for HFS. Sneeef ... nostalgy aside. If it is not too daring, then i would propose this roadmap for refurbishing the burner corner of Debian: - I learn what kind of signing is meant with http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers "All packages must be signed with the GnuPG key" gpg --clearsign ... ? gpg -o ...sig -u ... ? dpkg-buildpackage without -us -uc ? and get my proposals dput'ed to mentors.debian.net. Hints and examples are welcome. - You become sponsor for me and my packages. Train me like a space monkey. I am very good with using cheat sheets. You also show me were to learn managing bug reports. - When libburnia packages and bugs are clean, we merge "Debian Libburnia packagers" and cdrkit maintainers. Will Joerg Jaspert be interested to continue with cdrkit ? I think Eduard Bloch is retired, isn't he ? My team mate Mario Danic is quite busy in real life, too. I'll ask him whether he wants to stay in packagers. - cdrkit would need an upstream home page and a VCS, wouldn't it ? Do you still have a copy of the old content ? Known use cases not covered by libburnia: wodim for mixed mode CDs genisoimage -udf genisoimage -hfs I guess there are more. We should clearly deprecate wodim for DVD and BD media, but not keep it from doing DVD-R[W] DAO. It seems to refuse on BD anyway. cdrskin is fine as replacement. - We should ask the pkg-opt-media-team whether it wants to merge in, too. (Never met any of the listed people.) Else it would be nice if it would sponsor me on dvd+rw-tools (growisofs et.al.), where i currently have a patch pending. - Finally we make a massakre on open bug reports. Many won't fix. Many are individual drive-media problems. Are the persons listed as "Maintainers" on https://packages.debian.org/jessie/libburn4 https://packages.debian.org/jessie/growisofs the only team members ? Is there a member list for teams ? Other than https://wiki.debian.org/Teams which does not list them. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
Thomas Schmitt wrote: >Hi, > >assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing >orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on >Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions: > >- What more do i have to set up for making them ready > for submission to a sponsor ? Sid ? > >- Is an experienced packager around who could do a > (one-time) review of my .debian.tar.xz before i bother > busy people with upload permission ? > >- How do i express that libisoburn source is licensed GPL-2 > or later but the xorriso binary becomes licensed GPL-3 > or later by linking it with libreadline ? > >-- >What i did so far (with more curves than needed, i guess): Hi Thomas, I'm more than happy to help get you into Debian here, and I've got some experience with all these tools already. : -) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
On Wednesday 19 August 2015 19:54:11 Dominique Dumont wrote: > On Tuesday 18 August 2015 19:58:21 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing > > orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on > > Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions: > > > > i fetched the Debian source and ran dch > > > > apt-get source libburn4 > > Hmm, libburn is marked as "help wanted" [1]. I could not find any bug in > wnpp [2] marking is as orphan. Where did you get the info that this package > is orphaned ? > > Anyway, your help is probably more than welcome. But you must check with the > current package owner (cc'ed) if this package is not orphaned. > > The PTS [3] also indicated that this package is team maintained, so you > should also join the maintenance team on alioth [4]. > > All the best > > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=679249 > [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=wnpp;dist=unstable > [3] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libburn > [4] https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-libburnia/ I just orphaned the three packages: libburn, libisofs, libisoburn. The team has been mostly one-man for a couple of years, but eventually I run out of time, energy, and burning hardware to properly maintain these packages. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
Hi, David Wright wrote: > Why would I want a character that doesn't behave as a space to be > displayed as a normal space? That's the question about the use case. I don't have one. So i made Alt+Spacebar behave like Spacebar. But the typographical purpose of NO-BREAK SPACE is to look like space without inviting an automatic line break. So making it look not like space would be absurd. > It seems a recipe for confusion at best, > and for exploits at worst. It's name should be Spoof Space. On an UTF-8 terminal it travels with Copy+Paste and survives in bash history. Imagine my initial panic when my few weeks old Debian told me that there is no '..' in an ext4 directory. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
Hi, Dominique Dumont wrote: > Hmm, libburn is marked as "help wanted" [1]. I could not find any bug in > wnpp [2] marking is as orphan. Where did you get the info that this > package is orphaned ? Sorry for the lack of proper Debian terminology. My upstream packages are de facto unmaintained because their last active maintainer in Debian has no time to follow my releases. The current packaged version 1.3.2 is two years behind. debian-cd uses GNU xorriso-1.3.4 instead (which i make with my GNU maintainer's hat on). > Anyway, your help is probably more than welcome. But > you must check with the current package owner (cc'ed) > if this package is not orphaned. Hi George ! I'm on Debian now. :)) > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=679249 More specifically now: Sponsor needed. Upstream will work for upload. > The PTS [3] also indicated that this package is team maintained, so you > should also join the maintenance team on alioth [4]. Here i can re-use a rant which i trashbinned yesterday night. :)) I was tired and frustrated that having fresh Debian packages did not bring me as near to my goal as i had hoped. Please take it now just as description of the situation around CD, DVD, and BD burners - narrated with some emotion: -- mentors.debian.net says i shall join the packaging team of the package. But i would be the only member there. After all i want to make new packages because the team is dead since years. I'm already the bellman at its mailing list pkg-libburnia-devel and its bug tracker. The neighboring team of dvd+rw-tools et.al. is dead, too. Look at the bug lists https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint=pkg-libburnia-devel%40lists.alioth.debian.org https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint=pkg-opt-media-team%40lists.alioth.debian.org All non-wishlist bugs of pkg-libburnia-devel are fixed in version 1.4.0 of the libraries. Some already in 1.3.2. For pkg-opt-media-team i could diagnose about all bugs with numbers above 70. (And the others could be burried finally.) As for cdrkit, i guess https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=cdrkit is item omega0 plus 1 on the todo lists of Joerg Jaspert and Steve McIntyre. [Deleted exaggerated rethorics about the worlds of Jack Vance and Franz Kafka.] -- Well, next morning i felt better. I will try to learn using the official channels. Thanks for the warning about the word "orphaned". Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
On Tuesday 18 August 2015 19:58:21 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing > orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on > Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions: > > i fetched the Debian source and ran dch > > apt-get source libburn4 Hmm, libburn is marked as "help wanted" [1]. I could not find any bug in wnpp [2] marking is as orphan. Where did you get the info that this package is orphaned ? Anyway, your help is probably more than welcome. But you must check with the current package owner (cc'ed) if this package is not orphaned. The PTS [3] also indicated that this package is team maintained, so you should also join the maintenance team on alioth [4]. All the best [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=679249 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=wnpp;dist=unstable [3] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libburn [4] https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-libburnia/ -- https://github.com/dod38fr/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -o- irc: dod at irc.debian.org
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
Hi, i wrote: > > License: GPL-3 > >The source code is GPL-2-or-later. By linking with GPL-3 licensed > >libreadline.so.6 the resulting binaries become GPL-3 licensed, too. Don Armstrong wrote: > debian/copyright documents the license of the source code, not license > the resultant binary. I see. The man page effect again. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html#copyright So back to License: GPL-2 On Debian systems the full text of the GNU General Public License can be found in the /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 file. > [Obviously, there are requirements on the > resultant binary, but debian/copyright is not the place to document > them.] I am curious whether it will cause a new bug report when Debian's xorriso says $ xorriso -version ... Provided under GNU GPL version 3 or later, due to libreadline license. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. although the copyright information says GPL-2. And both are correct. Quantum physics. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: > > Regardless, you just express the full set of licenses in > > debian/copyright. The effective set of licenses of the binary isn't > > something you have to deal with (luckily). > > The FSF would contradict. If Debian links GPLv2+ libisoburn with > GPLv3+ libreadline and distributes the result, then this result must > be GPLv3+. The result must satisfy the requirements of GPL-3+ when distributed. It does not change the actual license of the source code of libisoburn or libreadline, though. [...] > So i have meanwhile decided to write in debian/copyright: > > License: GPL-3 >The source code is GPL-2-or-later. By linking with GPL-3 licensed >libreadline.so.6 the resulting binaries become GPL-3 licensed, too. >On Debian systems the full text of the GNU General Public License can >be found in the /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3 file. This is wrong. The license of the source code of libisoburn is GPL-2+. The license of the resultant binary is effectively the intersection of all of the terms of the appropriate licenses, which should just be GPL-3+. [Modulo local copyright law, of course.] debian/copyright documents the license of the source code, not license the resultant binary. [Obviously, there are requirements on the resultant binary, but debian/copyright is not the place to document them.] -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com The carbon footprint of a single human being is enormous. If you think about it, your honour, I'm an environmentalist. -- a softer world #283 http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=283
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
Hi,
Don Armstrong wrote:
> You can also use mentors.debian.net to upload fixed
> versions of these packages so that people can review them.
I am exploring it ... while trying to silence warnings
from dh_shlibdeps about useless dependencies, and from
dpkg-gencontrol about "unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}".
(The former seems to be caused by my upstream habit to
link dependency libraries at higher levels too.
The latter seems to come from .deb packages which have in
debian/control "Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}," but in the
file list neither a shared library nor a binary that
needs a shared library ... i guess from googling ...)
> > - How do i express that libisoburn source is licensed GPL-2
> > or later but the xorriso binary becomes licensed GPL-3
> > or later by linking it with libreadline ?
> Hopefully you mean that it's licensed GPL-2 or 3, and the effective
> permissions are now just GPL-3.
Yes. GPL-2, 3, 4, ... "or later".
http://libburnia-project.org/browser/libisoburn/trunk/COPYRIGHT
> Regardless, you just express the full set of licenses in
> debian/copyright. The effective set of licenses of the binary isn't
> something you have to deal with (luckily).
The FSF would contradict. If Debian links GPLv2+ libisoburn
with GPLv3+ libreadline and distributes the result, then this
result must be GPLv3+. Else Debian would violate GPL-3.
I was made aware of the problem by
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=749801
I understand debian/control causes the linking by line
Build-Depends: ... libreadline-dev ...
and the automatic recognition of availability of libreadline-dev
by the ./configure script of libisoburn. The recognition
is caused by not using ./configure option --disable-libreadline.
So i have meanwhile decided to write in debian/copyright:
License: GPL-3
The source code is GPL-2-or-later. By linking with GPL-3 licensed
libreadline.so.6 the resulting binaries become GPL-3 licensed, too.
On Debian systems the full text of the GNU General Public License can
be found in the /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3 file.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing > orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on > Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions: > > - What more do i have to set up for making them ready > for submission to a sponsor ? Sid ? The best place to ask is debian-ment...@lists.debian.org or #debian-mentors. You can also use mentors.debian.net to upload fixed versions of these packages so that people can review them. > - Is an experienced packager around who could do a > (one-time) review of my .debian.tar.xz before i bother > busy people with upload permission ? Post on the resources above for that. > - How do i express that libisoburn source is licensed GPL-2 > or later but the xorriso binary becomes licensed GPL-3 > or later by linking it with libreadline ? Hopefully you mean that it's licensed GPL-2 or 3, and the effective permissions are now just GPL-3. Regardless, you just express the full set of licenses in debian/copyright. The effective set of licenses of the binary isn't something you have to deal with (luckily). -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com I stared at the mountain rising over me. Empty. It was a pointless thing to have done -- climb up it, across it, and down it. Stupid! It looked perfect; so clean and untouched, and we had changed nothing. [...] I had been on it too long, and it had taken everything. -- Joe Simpson "Touching the Void" p117
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
Hi, Brian wrote: > debian-mentors looks good enough. https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/ says: "This list is not meant for users' questions, but for new maintainers'!" Looking into the recent archives i get the impression that i lack a glossary of debian-speak. Especially the word "maintainer" is heavily overloaded. There seems to be a "RFS" protocol by which one can submit packaging offers. Google finds me mentors.debian.net. Will see how far i can get with that. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
On Tue 18 Aug 2015 at 19:58:21 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing > orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on > Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions: > > - What more do i have to set up for making them ready > for submission to a sponsor ? Sid ? debian-mentors looks good enough. > - Is an experienced packager around who could do a > (one-time) review of my .debian.tar.xz before i bother > busy people with upload permission ? As above. > - How do i express that libisoburn source is licensed GPL-2 > or later but the xorriso binary becomes licensed GPL-3 > or later by linking it with libreadline ? Pass.
One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
Hi, assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions: - What more do i have to set up for making them ready for submission to a sponsor ? Sid ? - Is an experienced packager around who could do a (one-time) review of my .debian.tar.xz before i bother busy people with upload permission ? - How do i express that libisoburn source is licensed GPL-2 or later but the xorriso binary becomes licensed GPL-3 or later by linking it with libreadline ? -- What i did so far (with more curves than needed, i guess): After reading https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/debian-packaging.html i fetched the Debian source and ran dch apt-get source libburn4 cd libburn-1.3.2 dch to prepend to debian/changelog: libburn (1.4.0-1) unstable; urgency=low * Non-maintainer upload. * New upstream release ... * Removed dependency on doxygen -- Thomas Schmitt Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:25:43 +0200 This earned me dch warning: your current directory has been renamed to: ../libburn-1.4.0 dch warning: no orig tarball found for the new version. So i renamed libburn-1.4.0, unpacked upstream libburn-1.4.0.tar.gz, moved ./debian from the renamed Debian source tree to it, and put a copy of the upstream tarball as ../libburn_1.4.0.orig.tar.gz above this self-made libburn-1.4.0 directory. Then i went through the files in libburn-1.4.0/debian trying to understand and to adapt them to the new release. Since doxygen is a potential source of trouble, i removed it from debian/control and debian/rules. Then i ran dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc Now i have -rw-r--r-- 1 * *1332 Aug 18 14:01 libburn_1.4.0-1.dsc -rw-r--r-- 1 * *5620 Aug 18 14:01 libburn_1.4.0-1.debian.tar.xz -rw-r--r-- 1 * * 970395 Aug 18 14:01 libburn_1.4.0.orig.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 * *3582 Aug 18 14:02 libburn_1.4.0-1_amd64.changes -rw-r--r-- 1 * * 140244 Aug 18 14:02 libburn-doc_1.4.0-1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 * * 204788 Aug 18 14:02 libburn-dev_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 * * 251520 Aug 18 14:02 libburn-dbg_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 * * 117598 Aug 18 14:02 cdrskin_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 * * 149800 Aug 18 14:02 libburn4_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb Other than the downloaded .dsc, my new one is not PGP signed. (Who signs ? Sponsor or sponsee ?) As superuser i ran dpkg -i libburn4_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb dpkg -i cdrskin_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb A run of cdrskin -version says it is 1.4.0 on libburn-1.4.0. A run of cdrskin --devices shows my drives. Similar i did with libisofs_1.3.2-1.1 and libisoburn_1.3.2-1.1. Installation: dpkg -i libisofs6_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb A run of xorriso-1.3.2 -version shows that it uses libisofs-1.4.0 and libburn-1.4.0. The precondition to build the libisoburn packages was apt-get install libreadline-dev dpkg -i libburn-dev_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb dpkg -i libisofs-dev_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb After dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc in libisoburn-1.4.0 : dpkg -i libisoburn1_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb Yields interesting version mix in xorriso. main believes it is 1.3.2, the whole implementation knows it is 1.4.0. I let main be 1.4.0, too, by: dpkg -i xorriso_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb xorriso -version and xorriso -devices work as expected. xfburn-0.5.2 starts up, at least. Ultimate trust test: My own early evening backup script ... my work backs up itself. Today it's 100 MB more than usual. -- Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: [debian-user] Howto build Debian source packages (tar.gz)??
Dear all,
here is how it worked for me:
> apt-get install debhelper ### (>= 9)
> apt-get install dkms
> apt-get install quilt
> apt-get install nvidia-support
Some packages I got from elsewhere (by googling), e.g.:
+
http://packages.debian.org/wheezy-backports/amd64/glx-alternative-mesa/download
+
http://pkgs.org/debian-wheezy/debian-backports-contrib-amd64/glx-alternative-nvidia_0.4.0~bpo70+1_amd64.deb.html
+ http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/amd64/libvdpau1/download
+ http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/amd64/nvidia-kernel-common/download
+ http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/amd64/nvidia-xconfig/download
... to be installed by (not sure whether exactly in this order):
> dpkg -i glx-diversions_0.4.0~bpo70+1_amd64.deb
> dpkg -i glx-alternative-nvidia_0.4.0~bpo70+1_amd64.deb
> dpkg -i glx-alternative-mesa_0.4.0~bpo70+1_amd64.deb
> dpkg -i libvdpau1_0.4.1-7_amd64.deb
> dpkg -i nvidia-kernel-common_20120630+3_amd64.deb
> dpkg -i nvidia-xconfig_304.48-1_amd64.deb
> cp nvidia-graphics-drivers_${ORIGVERSION}.orig.tar.gz debdir/workdir
> cp nvidia-graphics-drivers_${DEBVERSION}.debian.tar.gz debdir/workdir
> cd debdir/workdir
> tar fvxz nvidia-graphics-drivers_${ORIGVERSION}.orig.tar.gz
> tar fvxz nvidia-graphics-drivers_${DEBVERSION}.debian.tar.gz
> mv nvidia-graphics-drivers_${ORIGVERSION}.orig.tar.gz ..
> mv nvidia-graphics-drivers-${ORIGVERSION}.orig/* .
> rmdir nvidia-graphics-drivers-${ORIGVERSION}.orig
> rm nvidia-graphics-drivers_${DEBVERSION}.debian.tar.gz
> dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
Now the created DEBs can be installed by (that order works):
> dpkg -i libcuda1
> dpkg -i nvidia-alternative
> dpkg -i libgl1-nvidia-glx
> dpkg -i libnvcuvid1
> dpkg -i libnvidia-compiler
> dpkg -i libnvidia-encode1
> dpkg -i libnvidia-ifr1
> dpkg -i libnvidia-ml1
> dpkg -i nvidia-cuda-mps
> dpkg -i nvidia-detect
> dpkg -i nvidia-kernel-source
> dpkg -i nvidia-libopencl1
> dpkg -i nvidia-opencl-common
> dpkg -i nvidia-opencl-icd
> dpkg -i nvidia-smi
> dpkg -i nvidia-vdpau-driver
> dpkg -i xserver-xorg-video-nvidia
> dpkg -i nvidia-kernel-dkms
> dpkg -i nvidia-driver
> dpkg -i nvidia-glx
In the end:
> nvidia-xconfig
> shutdown -r now
Thanks for the help, again.
Cheers, Nick
2013/11/26 Nick Rudnick
> Dear all,
>
> how to build Debian source packages,
> e.g. nvidia-graphics-drivers_331.20-1.debian.tar.gz (
> http://packages.debian.org/source/experimental/nvidia-graphics-drivers)??
> It seems different to common DEB as well as tarballs with configure/make.
>
> Even a search term would help, as trying with Google/Wikipedia/Debian.org
> wasn't too lucky yet.
>
> Thanks in advance and cheers, Nick
>
Re: Howto build Debian source packages (tar.gz)??
Nick Rudnick writes: > how to build Debian source packages, > e.g. nvidia-graphics-drivers_331.20-1.debian.tar.gz ( > http://packages.debian.org/source/experimental/nvidia-graphics-drivers)?? > It seems different to common DEB as well as tarballs with configure/make. Others may be able to give you a better answer, but you might find the manuals here useful: http://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals See especially the Introduction to Debian Packaging and the New Maintainer's Guide. Best, Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4a2spjo@berkeley.edu
Re: [debian-user] Howto build Debian source packages (tar.gz)??
Hi Nick, On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Nick Rudnick wrote: > Dear all, > > how to build Debian source packages, e.g. > nvidia-graphics-drivers_331.20-1.debian.tar.gz > (http://packages.debian.org/source/experimental/nvidia-graphics-drivers)?? > It seems different to common DEB as well as tarballs with configure/make. > Well, you happened to pick a really complicated package: Nvidia graphics drivers are in non-free and the source is split into multiple binary packages. A few points: - "Common DEB" are the result of compiling source package (i.e. the binary output), so you don't actually compile .deb files. - You don't compile the .debian.tar.gz file either. Look towards the end of the page that you provided. There are actually three files which comprises a debian source package: the .dsc (basically a description of the debian source package), the .orig.tar.gz (the original tarball from upstream), and the .debian.tar.gz (containing things specific to the debian package). - In order to see the complete debian source package, you have to unpack the upstream tarball, unpack the .debian.tar.gz into a debian/ directory under the upstream source, and apply the patches in debian/patches/ to the upstream source. - The .debian.tar.gz contains a file "rules", which is a makefile specifying how the binary package is to be generated. It is usually more than just a make file though; for the nvidia drivers, it contains directions for debhelper. - debhelper (as the name suggests) is a handy helper to make packaging easier. It hides some of the more tedious/common things during package creation, such as having to manually write makefiles. > Even a search term would help, as trying with Google/Wikipedia/Debian.org > wasn't too lucky yet. > Sorry to say, but for a complicated package such as nvidia drivers, you either use the already built binary package (through apt-get), or you probably have to know enough about packaging that you could've been a maintainer. For the latter, here are some resources: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ Regards, Vincent Chen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cafuqieysluo7e08cdyx+s7l1j+kdo3aegufz9hiumz3-3fd...@mail.gmail.com
[debian-user] Howto build Debian source packages (tar.gz)??
Dear all, how to build Debian source packages, e.g. nvidia-graphics-drivers_331.20-1.debian.tar.gz ( http://packages.debian.org/source/experimental/nvidia-graphics-drivers)?? It seems different to common DEB as well as tarballs with configure/make. Even a search term would help, as trying with Google/Wikipedia/Debian.org wasn't too lucky yet. Thanks in advance and cheers, Nick
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:46:18 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 03:23:04PM +, Camaleón wrote: >> I don't recall Hugo has said what he tried (exactly) and what was the >> result. > > Really? > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/08/msg00310.html Really. The post you mention was written *after* mine¹ and given I don't have super cow powers I can't predict what the future will bring. > Seems like problem solved? *Now* yes, so it seems. ¹http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/08/msg00296.html Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvojcb$qkd$5...@dough.gmane.org
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 03:23:04PM +, Camaleón wrote: > I don't recall Hugo has said what he tried (exactly) and what was the > result. Really? http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/08/msg00310.html Seems like problem solved? -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120805174618.GB19240@tal
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
Camaleón wrote: On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:38:29 -0500, hvw59601 wrote: Camaleón wrote: On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote: http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present. I want to do the installs with apt-get source. How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say? Does this help? http://snapshot.debian.org/ Hint: "Usage" section >:-) I looked at that but the examples of the deb entries they give are nothing like where the linux source files are. Uh? :-? Have you tried with the recommended steps? Let's see how I see it. You said you wanted to install a bunch of source kernel packages. So, let's take the first one: http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/3.2.20-1~bpo60%2B1/ Which points to: http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian-backports/20120629T195518Z/pool/main/l/linux/linux_3.2.20-1%7Ebpo60%2B1.debian.tar.xz So given that URI and back to the "Usage" hints, I would add to the sources-list: deb-src http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian-backports/20120629T195518Z/ stable main (adjust "stable" to fit your current flavour) Anyway, you can also get the single ".deb" binary and install it or fetch the source to compile the kernel and make your own changes. Yep, that's it and then 'apt-get source linux'. I then make the deb-src the only one in the sources.list. Thanks Camaléon. Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvm9m2$24h$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 03:06:25 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 02:32:49PM +, Camaleón wrote: >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:06:19 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: >> > Not me, The OP found an issue, ... so ... why can't he bring it up >> > there? Entirely appropriate, IMNSVHO. >> >> But you seemed to dissect the issue and found a documentation problem. >> I wonder what info is what you're missing (if any). > > I went as far as having a look (as I may need it myself at some stage), > saw the Usage section which you referred to but that was it, IOW I > haven't tried it. > > According to the OP, he did, but it didn't work for him. I noticed there > was a debian-snapshot ML there ..., the rest is history. I don't recall Hugo has said what he tried (exactly) and what was the result. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvm34o$kog$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 02:32:49PM +, Camaleón wrote: > On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:06:19 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > > Not me, The OP found an issue, ... so ... why can't he bring it up > > there? Entirely appropriate, IMNSVHO. > > But you seemed to dissect the issue and found a documentation problem. I > wonder what info is what you're missing (if any). I went as far as having a look (as I may need it myself at some stage), saw the Usage section which you referred to but that was it, IOW I haven't tried it. According to the OP, he did, but it didn't work for him. I noticed there was a debian-snapshot ML there ..., the rest is history. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120805150625.GA18690@tal
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:06:19 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 01:29:10PM +, Camaleón wrote: >> >> Sorry, but I don't get what kind of documentation issue do you find >> here. There's a small "Usage" section in the front page. Sources and >> binary files are there, so...? > > Not me, The OP found an issue, ... so ... why can't he bring it up > there? Entirely appropriate, IMNSVHO. But you seemed to dissect the issue and found a documentation problem. I wonder what info is what you're missing (if any). Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvm06h$kog$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 01:29:10PM +, Camaleón wrote: > > Sorry, but I don't get what kind of documentation issue do you find here. > There's a small "Usage" section in the front page. Sources and binary > files are there, so...? Not me, The OP found an issue, ... so ... why can't he bring it up there? Entirely appropriate, IMNSVHO. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120805140619.GB18422@tal
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:47:18 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:09:20AM +, Camaleón wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:31:48 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:38:29PM -0500, hvw59601 wrote: >> >> I looked at that but the examples of the deb entries they give are >> >> nothing like where the linux source files are. >> > >> > In that case, your message is best directed to: >> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-snapshot/ >> >> Oh, come on... yet again with this? You're starting to sound boring :-) > > What? Get off your high horse! :-) Can't get off (a foot caught in the stirrup). > "This list covers discussion and maintenance of the snapshot.debian.org > archive as well as the development of enhancements of this service." > > Seems entirely appropriate. Unclear/incorrect documentation is a bug. Sorry, but I don't get what kind of documentation issue do you find here. There's a small "Usage" section in the front page. Sources and binary files are there, so...? Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvlsf6$kog$8...@dough.gmane.org
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:09:20AM +, Camaleón wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:31:48 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:38:29PM -0500, hvw59601 wrote: > >> I looked at that but the examples of the deb entries they give are > >> nothing like where the linux source files are. > > > > In that case, your message is best directed to: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-snapshot/ > > Oh, come on... yet again with this? You're starting to sound boring :-) What? Get off your high horse! :-) "This list covers discussion and maintenance of the snapshot.debian.org archive as well as the development of enhancements of this service." Seems entirely appropriate. Unclear/incorrect documentation is a bug. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120805124718.GA17886@tal
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:31:48 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:38:29PM -0500, hvw59601 wrote: >> Camaleón wrote: >> >On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote: >> > >> >>http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel >> >>source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug >> >>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present. >> >> >> >>I want to do the installs with apt-get source. >> >> >> >>How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say? >> > >> >Does this help? >> > >> >http://snapshot.debian.org/ >> > >> >Hint: "Usage" section >:-) >> > >> > >> I looked at that but the examples of the deb entries they give are >> nothing like where the linux source files are. > > In that case, your message is best directed to: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-snapshot/ Oh, come on... yet again with this? You're starting to sound boring :-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvlgof$kog$2...@dough.gmane.org
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:38:29 -0500, hvw59601 wrote: > Camaleón wrote: >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote: >> >>> http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel >>> source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug >>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present. >>> >>> I want to do the installs with apt-get source. >>> >>> How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say? >> >> Does this help? >> >> http://snapshot.debian.org/ >> >> Hint: "Usage" section >:-) >> >> > I looked at that but the examples of the deb entries they give are > nothing like where the linux source files are. Uh? :-? Have you tried with the recommended steps? Let's see how I see it. You said you wanted to install a bunch of source kernel packages. So, let's take the first one: http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/3.2.20-1~bpo60%2B1/ Which points to: http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian-backports/20120629T195518Z/pool/main/l/linux/linux_3.2.20-1%7Ebpo60%2B1.debian.tar.xz So given that URI and back to the "Usage" hints, I would add to the sources-list: deb-src http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian-backports/20120629T195518Z/ stable main (adjust "stable" to fit your current flavour) Anyway, you can also get the single ".deb" binary and install it or fetch the source to compile the kernel and make your own changes. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvlghv$kog$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:38:29PM -0500, hvw59601 wrote: > Camaleón wrote: > >On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote: > > > >>http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel > >>source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug > >>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present. > >> > >>I want to do the installs with apt-get source. > >> > >>How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say? > > > >Does this help? > > > >http://snapshot.debian.org/ > > > >Hint: "Usage" section >:-) > > > > I looked at that but the examples of the deb entries they give are > nothing like where the linux source files are. In that case, your message is best directed to: http://lists.debian.org/debian-snapshot/ -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120804223148.GB15630@tal
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
Camaleón wrote: On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote: http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present. I want to do the installs with apt-get source. How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say? Does this help? http://snapshot.debian.org/ Hint: "Usage" section >:-) I looked at that but the examples of the deb entries they give are nothing like where the linux source files are. Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvk4ol$pgd$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote: > http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel > source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present. > > I want to do the installs with apt-get source. > > How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say? Does this help? http://snapshot.debian.org/ Hint: "Usage" section >:-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvk3qd$dtf$1...@dough.gmane.org
installing source packages from snapshot.debian.org with apt-get source
Hi, http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present. I want to do the installs with apt-get source. How does one do this? Specifically, what should the sources.list say? Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jvk2kk$blf$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: getting source packages with synaptic
On 29/01/12 21:27, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Du, 29 ian 12, 18:55:00, Tony van der Hoff wrote: Much googling on the subject suggests that it might not be possible to do that. Anyone know whether that's true, if so, why, and if not how can I do it? Probably nobody bothered to implement the feature since people hacking on source code usually don't mind using the command line ;) Thanks, Andrei. It's what I guessed. Maybe I'll have a go at hacking synaptic source code ;) -- Tony van der Hoff| mailto:t...@vanderhoff.org Buckinghamshire, England | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f265e51.8000...@vanderhoff.org
Re: getting source packages with synaptic
On Du, 29 ian 12, 18:55:00, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > > Much googling on the subject suggests that it might not be possible > to do that. Anyone know whether that's true, if so, why, and if not > how can I do it? Probably nobody bothered to implement the feature since people hacking on source code usually don't mind using the command line ;) Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
getting source packages with synaptic
Hi, Running squeeze, when I want a source package, I do apt-get source , which works well enough. However, I'm really a pointy-clicky type, and would prefer to use synaptic for this. Much googling on the subject suggests that it might not be possible to do that. Anyone know whether that's true, if so, why, and if not how can I do it? cheers -- Tony van der Hoff| mailto:t...@vanderhoff.org Buckinghamshire, England | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f259604.10...@vanderhoff.org
debianinzing some source packages from a local mirror
Often I need to make changes to Debian source files, so I was thinking of having my own partial source mirror I have been reading on how to do that and I have found some inconsistencies between the German version of Debian docs (6.11.2 "Partieller Spiegel", which I read and annotated some time ago), the English docs and other sources on the Net, which makes me wonder about what may be out there that I don't know (I have search too, but still can't find good information on how to do this) I think basically all you need is: 1) find out which packages' sources do I need. (I think I read somewhere about making apt-get do a dry run to find out) 2) get the sources and stash them locally along with their official consistency data (md5sums, signing keys, ...) 3) get the build dependencies among the source packages (from where do you get that graph?) 4) somehow use 3) to sequentially build, make and install packages 5) keep track of the cruft that may be created to then remove it 6) periodically "go to the source" and/or register some deb-src mailing list in order to update your own mirror if necessary How do you achieve this? Thanks lbrtchx -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is there a central depository so that I can download all the source packages?
On 2009-08-31 22:50, Peng Yu wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Niu Kun wrote: Peng Yu 写道: Hi, I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they certainly do not have all the source code packages. http://linux.softpedia.com/ http://www.icewalkers.com/Linux/Software/ Can somebody let me know where I can download all the source code in Debian? Add "deb-src" to your apt-get list. Then you can use "apt-get source `package-name`" to get the source of your target package. My linux is redhat, which does not have apt-get. Where I can download apt-get source code? Didn't you ask this same question last week? (Or is this part of a school project, and are the 2nd person to ask?) Anyway, if you're running RedHat, why in the heck do you want to use *Debian* source files? Use SRPMs. Much simpler!!! -- Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is there a central depository so that I can download all the source packages?
Hi ! Niu Kun wrote: Peng Yu ??: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Niu Kun wrote: Peng Yu ??: Hi, I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they certainly do not have all the source code packages. http://linux.softpedia.com/ http://www.icewalkers.com/Linux/Software/ Can somebody let me know where I can download all the source code in Debian? Regards, Peng Add "deb-src" to your apt-get list. Then you can use "apt-get source `package-name`" to get the source of your target package. My linux is redhat, which does not have apt-get. Where I can download apt-get source code? Regards, Peng Then you come to the wrong mail list. In similar situation, I make a list of softwares that I really need and that are not installed, then I install the listed ones the hard way with GNU tools. The fist step is to set up a relevant `config.site', which is used by autotools (namely /configure). An alternative is to contact the root and kindly ask him to install the missing softwares. You can ask to be the root too, namely to install Debian on the computer and being the root. Jerome -- Jerome BENOIT jgmbenoit_at_mailsnare_dot_net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is there a central depository so that I can download all the source packages?
Peng Yu 写道: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Niu Kun wrote: Peng Yu 写道: Hi, I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they certainly do not have all the source code packages. http://linux.softpedia.com/ http://www.icewalkers.com/Linux/Software/ Can somebody let me know where I can download all the source code in Debian? Regards, Peng Add "deb-src" to your apt-get list. Then you can use "apt-get source `package-name`" to get the source of your target package. My linux is redhat, which does not have apt-get. Where I can download apt-get source code? Regards, Peng Then you come to the wrong mail list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is there a central depository so that I can download all the source packages?
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Niu Kun wrote: > Peng Yu 写道: >> >> Hi, >> >> I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root >> account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they >> certainly do not have all the source code packages. >> >> http://linux.softpedia.com/ >> http://www.icewalkers.com/Linux/Software/ >> >> Can somebody let me know where I can download all the source code in >> Debian? >> >> Regards, >> Peng >> >> >> > > Add "deb-src" to your apt-get list. > Then you can use "apt-get source `package-name`" to get the source of your > target package. My linux is redhat, which does not have apt-get. Where I can download apt-get source code? Regards, Peng -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Is there a central depository so that I can download all the source packages?
Peng Yu 写道: Hi, I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they certainly do not have all the source code packages. http://linux.softpedia.com/ http://www.icewalkers.com/Linux/Software/ Can somebody let me know where I can download all the source code in Debian? Regards, Peng Add "deb-src" to your apt-get list. Then you can use "apt-get source `package-name`" to get the source of your target package. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Is there a central depository so that I can download all the source packages?
Hi, I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they certainly do not have all the source code packages. http://linux.softpedia.com/ http://www.icewalkers.com/Linux/Software/ Can somebody let me know where I can download all the source code in Debian? Regards, Peng -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: How to get all dependent source packages
Hi, On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:34:33PM +0800, sha liu wrote: > 2009/7/19 Osamu Aoki > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:46:59PM +0800, sha liu wrote: > > If you are building installation image only, you may not need dpkg. > > Why not? I thought installation image should prepare all essential packages > which definitely includes dpkg if it's a Debian image, right? I thought you are building binary image file with CLFS. This is not Debian installer nor this is any Debian system. So dpkg is not required. > > Anyway, please google and ead things like: > > http://cross-lfs.org/view/clfs-embedded/x86/index.html Have you done this? As I found this now, it is a nice document. You should also read http://trac.cross-lfs.org/ and their book. You do not get single line answer if there is book for it. I think you also need to learn some basics of Debian system by reading Debian documentations. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: How to get all dependent source packages
2009/7/19 Osamu Aoki > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:46:59PM +0800, sha liu wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > What I want to do is: > > If I want to build a package(for example dpkg) from source, how > > should I recursively get all the dependent *source* packages of it? > > This means not only the direct dependency of the package but also the > > dependent of the dependent...I know "apt-get build-dep" will only > > *install* the dependent *binary* packages. > > Do you really mean "ALL". You should start with build-essential > packages if you mean to say all build-dep packages. But I do not know > why you do this. You are doing cross compile. I do not see point of > downloading source for all build-dep. I just to build the dpkg. So I think getting all source packages of build-dep is the first step. Then I'll build and install the build-dep and finally build dpkg. Is this the way to go? > > > I guess this is best answered by reading CLFS itself. I am no expert. > > > I want to do this because I need to build dpkg on a CLFS system > > (think it as a minimal linux system without debianization), and it's > > crazy to download all dependent source packages of dpkg, right? > > Not really if you need dpkg as you say for your system. After all you > asked to have "Cross-Compiled Linux From Scratch" (a.k.a CLFS). > Yeah, I just realize that. Thanks for your re-confirmation :-) > > If you are building installation image only, you may not need dpkg. Why not? I thought installation image should prepare all essential packages which definitely includes dpkg if it's a Debian image, right? > > > Anyway, please google and ead things like: > > http://cross-lfs.org/view/clfs-embedded/x86/index.html > > Osamu -- Best, Sha Liu
Re: How to get all dependent source packages
Hi, On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:46:59PM +0800, sha liu wrote: > Hi everyone, > What I want to do is: > If I want to build a package(for example dpkg) from source, how > should I recursively get all the dependent *source* packages of it? > This means not only the direct dependency of the package but also the > dependent of the dependent...I know "apt-get build-dep" will only > *install* the dependent *binary* packages. Do you really mean "ALL". You should start with build-essential packages if you mean to say all build-dep packages. But I do not know why you do this. You are doing cross compile. I do not see point of downloading source for all build-dep. I guess this is best answered by reading CLFS itself. I am no expert. > I want to do this because I need to build dpkg on a CLFS system > (think it as a minimal linux system without debianization), and it's > crazy to download all dependent source packages of dpkg, right? Not really if you need dpkg as you say for your system. After all you asked to have "Cross-Compiled Linux From Scratch" (a.k.a CLFS). If you are building installation image only, you may not need dpkg. Anyway, please google and ead things like: http://cross-lfs.org/view/clfs-embedded/x86/index.html Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: How to get all dependent source packages
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:46:59PM +0800, sha liu wrote: > Hi everyone, > What I want to do is: > If I want to build a package(for example dpkg) from source, how > should I recursively get all the dependent *source* packages of it? > This means not only the direct dependency of the package but also the > dependent of the dependent...I know "apt-get build-dep" will only > *install* the dependent *binary* packages. > I want to do this because I need to build dpkg on a CLFS system > (think it as a minimal linux system without debianization), and it's > crazy to download all dependent source packages of dpkg, right? have you checked man apt-get look for build-dep -- "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush 12/19/2000 Washington, DC signature.asc Description: Digital signature
How to get all dependent source packages
Hi everyone, What I want to do is: If I want to build a package(for example dpkg) from source, how should I recursively get all the dependent *source* packages of it? This means not only the direct dependency of the package but also the dependent of the dependent...I know "apt-get build-dep" will only *install* the dependent *binary* packages. I want to do this because I need to build dpkg on a CLFS system (think it as a minimal linux system without debianization), and it's crazy to download all dependent source packages of dpkg, right? -- Best, Sha Liu
Re: How to remove source packages updating on apt-get update?
Thank You for Your time and answer, Boyd: > I believe Sven was correcting me and explaining that this is > absolutely normal. > > srcpkgcache.bin is not directly related to deb-src lines. It will > have contents if you have any remote sources. Ok now I got it: it is normal and so should be. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: How to remove source packages updating on apt-get update?
In <49ed872c.1e048e0a.6abf.b...@mx.google.com>, Sthu Deus wrote: >Thank You for Your time and answer, Sven: >> Not really, there is a misunderstanding here. Although its name >> suggests it, srcpkgcache.bin is _not_ a cache for source packages but >> rather a cache for packages from remote sources, see apt-cache(8). >I've read the manual but did not understand Your saying "a cache for >packages from remote sources". If You would, please explain in other >words. man 8 apt-cache /OPTIONS pkgcache.bin is the default value for the "-p" option. srcpkgcache.bin is the default value for the "-s" option. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: How to remove source packages updating on apt-get update?
In <49ed872c.1e048e0a.6abf.b...@mx.google.com>, Sthu Deus wrote: >I've checked the dir. w/ > >ls | grep Source > >it returned empty string. Still, after yesterday's update, I see both > >pkgcache.bin >srcpkgcache.bin > >are updated and almost of the same size: 14553423 and 14503826 >respectively. I believe Sven was correcting me and explaining that this is absolutely normal. srcpkgcache.bin is not directly related to deb-src lines. It will have contents if you have any remote sources. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: How to remove source packages updating on apt-get update?
Thank You for Your time and answer, Sven: > Not really, there is a misunderstanding here. Although its name > suggests it, srcpkgcache.bin is _not_ a cache for source packages but > rather a cache for packages from remote sources, see apt-cache(8). I've read the manual but did not understand Your saying "a cache for packages from remote sources". If You would, please explain in other words. > To get rid of remnants for old deb-src entries in sources.list, remove > /var/lib/apt/lists/*Sources* instead. I've checked the dir. w/ ls | grep Source it returned empty string. Still, after yesterday's update, I see both pkgcache.bin srcpkgcache.bin are updated and almost of the same size: 14553423 and 14503826 respectively. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: How to remove source packages updating on apt-get update?
On 2009-04-19 19:30 +0200, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > In <49eb5de6.9e03be0a.7ac0.6...@mx.google.com>, Sthu Deus wrote: >>I have all deb-src containg strings commented in sources.list, but on >> >>apt-get update >> >>I notice that in >> >>/var/cache/apt >> >>both, >> >>pkgcache.bin >>srcpkgcache.bin >> >>are updated. Is correct behaviour? > > Yes. > > The srcpkgcache.bin should be mostly empty though, since no source packages > are available. Not really, there is a misunderstanding here. Although its name suggests it, srcpkgcache.bin is _not_ a cache for source packages but rather a cache for packages from remote sources, see apt-cache(8). To get rid of remnants for old deb-src entries in sources.list, remove /var/lib/apt/lists/*Sources* instead. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: How to remove source packages updating on apt-get update?
In <49eb5de6.9e03be0a.7ac0.6...@mx.google.com>, Sthu Deus wrote: >I have all deb-src containg strings commented in sources.list, but on > >apt-get update > >I notice that in > >/var/cache/apt > >both, > >pkgcache.bin >srcpkgcache.bin > >are updated. Is correct behaviour? Yes. The srcpkgcache.bin should be mostly empty though, since no source packages are available. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
How to remove source packages updating on apt-get update?
Good day. I have all deb-src containg strings commented in sources.list, but on apt-get update I notice that in /var/cache/apt both, pkgcache.bin srcpkgcache.bin are updated. Is correct behaviour? I suppose the srcpkgcache.bin file corresponds to source packages and therefore, having commented the deb-src strings in sources.list, it should be updated. Am I correct? If so, how I can fix it? Thank You for Your time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: managing source packages
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Michal Kapalka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From the home page of debfoster: it has been depreciated, because all > the features of debfoster are already in aptitude. The original homepage has this message, but debfoster is still actively maintained by Debian Developers. See this page: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=366518 Also see the debian changelog here: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/debfoster/debfoster_2.7-1/changelog David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: managing source packages
Hi Michal,
Am 2008-06-04 16:18:11, schrieb Michal Kapalka:
> 1. Installing/building dependencies
>
> Say, I want to build a package pkg1. Usually, "apt-get build-dep pkg1"
> will install all dependencies. However, apt-get will fail if one of
> them, say pkg2, is not in "stable". Then, I have to install dependencies
> of pkg2, build pkg2 itself, and possibly do so recursively with
You have not to
> dependencies of pkg2 (and it took me hours when I tried that with
> texlive...). It would be nice if "apt-get" (or some other tool) would
> just try to resolve that itself, e.g., write "I need to install packages
> pkgA, pkgB from Etch, and build+install source packages pkgTestingA,
> pkgTestingB from Lenny. Do you want to continue? [Y/N]".
The right thing is to
apt-get source
${EDIT} ./package*.dsc
-> downgrade builddepends
${EDIT} package-X-Y-Z/debian/control
-> correct Depends:
cd package-X-Y-Z/
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
> 2. Keeping packages up to date
>
> Is there any way of automatic updating of packages built from source
> "debs"? It would be nice to have something like "apt-get source-update".
No, you should code a script which do autobuilding with:
1) subscribing to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) create a package list of your interests
3) if an appropriated message comes in, let the script download it
automaticaly
4) build it in a pure Stable-pbuilder
5) If errors occure inform ${YOU}
a) If there is an error, create a controllscript which solve the
problems by editing the dsc and debian/control files before
building and it will be called the next time the autobuilder
run
b) If there was an error, reinject the message of the failed
package to let it build again...
6) push the package into a local debian-miror and run dpkg-ftparchive
Now you can use
deb http://localhost/debian-backports stable main
and
apt-get update
apt-get install
> 3. Removing (build) dependencies
>
> Say, I installed a package pkg1 from source "debs". I needed to install
> pkg2 as a dependency of pkg1, and pkg3 as a build-time dependency of
> pkg1. Is there any way to remove pkg2 and pkg3 when pkg1 is,
> respectively, removed or built?
Do not do this. Downgrade the Builddepencies versions carefuly.
If thre are NEW packages which do not exist in Stable, try to remove it
and IF it compiles, try the program, if you get errors, PRE-Build this
package and install it.
> I have heard that "aptitude" might have some of those features in the
> future, and I can try to write scripts that solve the problem. But if
> there already is a viable solution, I will not "reinvent the wheel".
I am running "tdautobuilder" but currently I can only say: "It works for
me." I am working on it since it is more complicate as it seems.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature
Re: managing source packages
Michal Kapalka wrote: > Hi, > > I have been using Debian stable on my laptop for some time now, and I > really appreciate it, especially because updates do not break things > that work well. However, sometimes I need a package/feature that is only > in testing/unstable, and which is not (yet) in backports. The safest way > (I guess) to deal with those packages is to install them from source > using "apt-get build-dep / apt-get -b source / dpkg -i", but there are > several shortcomings of this method, which I describe below. Any > thoughts of how one can manage source packages better would be > appreciated. > > 1. Installing/building dependencies > > 2. Keeping packages up to date > > 3. Removing (build) dependencies > Can't you just set up a local repository for the packages that you build and give them a version number that is between stable and backports? So the version numbers look like stable version number --> your custom version number --> backports version number --> testing version number --> unstable version number. That way when you upgrade to later versions, it becomes a simple apt-get task. hth raju -- Kamaraju S Kusumanchi http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/ http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: managing source packages
Michal Kapalka writes: > Isn't it less safe than source debs? I mean, those packages are compiled > with newer versions of system libraries than the ones in Etch, so they > may simply refuse to work. Libraries have versions. If packages need newer libraries they should depend on them. If it installs without forcing it should work. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: managing source packages
>> I have been using Debian stable on my laptop for some time now, and I >> really appreciate it, especially because updates do not break things >> that work well. However, sometimes I need a package/feature that is only >> in testing/unstable, and which is not (yet) in backports. The safest way >> (I guess) to deal with those packages is to install them from source >> using "apt-get build-dep / apt-get -b source / dpkg -i" > > Most of the time you can install updated debs from unstable or testing > onto stable boxes. Is there a specific reason you can't/won't do this? Isn't it less safe than source debs? I mean, those packages are compiled with newer versions of system libraries than the ones in Etch, so they may simply refuse to work. The source packages should be safer here -- once they compile on Etch, they should work on Etch without problems. > Other options: > > - Install newer versions from Ubuntu or other 3rd-party locations > > - Maintain your own (partial) debian mirror with updated binary > versions for Etch > > - Help backports keep your favourite packages up to date. Those are indeed good alternatives -- to consider in the future (along with schroot proposed before). > You could try using apt-src or apt-build. This is, more or less, what I was looking for -- I'm not sure if they have all the features I want, but I see from the man pages that they should make dealing with source "debs" much easier. Thanks a lot! > I use debfoster. >From the home page of debfoster: it has been depreciated, because all the features of debfoster are already in aptitude. Best, Michal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: managing source packages
>> 1. Installing/building dependencies >> >> Say, I want to build a package pkg1. Usually, "apt-get build-dep pkg1" >> will install all dependencies. However, apt-get will fail if one of >> them, say pkg2, is not in "stable". Then, I have to install dependencies >> of pkg2, build pkg2 itself, and possibly do so recursively with >> dependencies of pkg2 (and it took me hours when I tried that with >> texlive...). It would be nice if "apt-get" (or some other tool) would >> just try to resolve that itself, e.g., write "I need to install packages >> pkgA, pkgB from Etch, and build+install source packages pkgTestingA, >> pkgTestingB from Lenny. Do you want to continue? [Y/N]". > > One problem may be that you end up with a mixed system and could break > things. Since disk space is so cheap, why not set up a testing (or Sid) > chroot and install the new stuff there? Access it with schroot. One one hand, schroot is indeed a good idea in the long term, and I might try it at some point (it also seems like a good alternative to running Lenny in a VM) -- thanks a lot for the suggestion. On the other hand, I use source debs only for some individual apps that do not depend on new versions of important libraries (glibc, gtk, etc.) so (1) the chance of breaking anything is rather low, and (2) the solution is very convenient and integrates well with all the other components of the system. The only problem so far was to manage the source packages in a convenient way. Best, Michal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: managing source packages
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Michal Kapalka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I have been using Debian stable on my laptop for some time now, and I > really appreciate it, especially because updates do not break things > that work well. However, sometimes I need a package/feature that is only > in testing/unstable, and which is not (yet) in backports. The safest way > (I guess) to deal with those packages is to install them from source > using "apt-get build-dep / apt-get -b source / dpkg -i" Most of the time you can install updated debs from unstable or testing onto stable boxes. Is there a specific reason you can't/won't do this? Other options: - Install newer versions from Ubuntu or other 3rd-party locations - Maintain your own (partial) debian mirror with updated binary versions for Etch - Help backports keep your favourite packages up to date. [...] > It would be nice if "apt-get" (or some other tool) would > just try to resolve that itself, e.g., write "I need to install packages > pkgA, pkgB from Etch, and build+install source packages pkgTestingA, > pkgTestingB from Lenny. Do you want to continue? [Y/N]". > You could try using apt-src or apt-build. > 3. Removing (build) dependencies > > Say, I installed a package pkg1 from source "debs". I needed to install > pkg2 as a dependency of pkg1, and pkg3 as a build-time dependency of > pkg1. Is there any way to remove pkg2 and pkg3 when pkg1 is, > respectively, removed or built? I use debfoster. David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: managing source packages
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 04:18:11PM +0200, Michal Kapalka wrote: > I have been using Debian stable on my laptop for some time now, and I > really appreciate it, especially because updates do not break things > that work well. However, sometimes I need a package/feature that is only > in testing/unstable, and which is not (yet) in backports. The safest way > (I guess) to deal with those packages is to install them from source > using "apt-get build-dep / apt-get -b source / dpkg -i", but there are > several shortcomings of this method, which I describe below. Any > thoughts of how one can manage source packages better would be appreciated. > > 1. Installing/building dependencies > > Say, I want to build a package pkg1. Usually, "apt-get build-dep pkg1" > will install all dependencies. However, apt-get will fail if one of > them, say pkg2, is not in "stable". Then, I have to install dependencies > of pkg2, build pkg2 itself, and possibly do so recursively with > dependencies of pkg2 (and it took me hours when I tried that with > texlive...). It would be nice if "apt-get" (or some other tool) would > just try to resolve that itself, e.g., write "I need to install packages > pkgA, pkgB from Etch, and build+install source packages pkgTestingA, > pkgTestingB from Lenny. Do you want to continue? [Y/N]". One problem may be that you end up with a mixed system and could break things. Since disk space is so cheap, why not set up a testing (or Sid) chroot and install the new stuff there? Access it with schroot. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
managing source packages
Hi, I have been using Debian stable on my laptop for some time now, and I really appreciate it, especially because updates do not break things that work well. However, sometimes I need a package/feature that is only in testing/unstable, and which is not (yet) in backports. The safest way (I guess) to deal with those packages is to install them from source using "apt-get build-dep / apt-get -b source / dpkg -i", but there are several shortcomings of this method, which I describe below. Any thoughts of how one can manage source packages better would be appreciated. 1. Installing/building dependencies Say, I want to build a package pkg1. Usually, "apt-get build-dep pkg1" will install all dependencies. However, apt-get will fail if one of them, say pkg2, is not in "stable". Then, I have to install dependencies of pkg2, build pkg2 itself, and possibly do so recursively with dependencies of pkg2 (and it took me hours when I tried that with texlive...). It would be nice if "apt-get" (or some other tool) would just try to resolve that itself, e.g., write "I need to install packages pkgA, pkgB from Etch, and build+install source packages pkgTestingA, pkgTestingB from Lenny. Do you want to continue? [Y/N]". 2. Keeping packages up to date Is there any way of automatic updating of packages built from source "debs"? It would be nice to have something like "apt-get source-update". 3. Removing (build) dependencies Say, I installed a package pkg1 from source "debs". I needed to install pkg2 as a dependency of pkg1, and pkg3 as a build-time dependency of pkg1. Is there any way to remove pkg2 and pkg3 when pkg1 is, respectively, removed or built? I have heard that "aptitude" might have some of those features in the future, and I can try to write scripts that solve the problem. But if there already is a viable solution, I will not "reinvent the wheel". Best, Michal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel source packages..
Many thanks to David, NN_il_Confusion and martin for their suggestions, in particular.. On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:24:09PM -0700, David Witbrodt wrote: > The book is great, but already a bit out of date. > Krafft has a website (not recently updated) which > includes error corrections and new information here: > > http://debiansystem.info . . Excellent! Very glad to know about that we site. Thanks! (and to Martin for setting it up) On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 07:05:33AM +0200, NN_il_Confusionario wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:52:41AM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: > > Can anyone shed any light on the differences between the > > various kernel source packages in the repository, > > kernel-source-* are for sarge and below > linux-source-* are for etch and beyond > Then do > apt-cache show $PACKAGE > and read the Description: > (for example, difference between linux-source-2.6.18 and linux-tree-2.6.18) . . I'm still a bit of a newbie with the Debian package management stuff. Obviously a bit more reading to do, but it is nice to know there are ways to get the answers to these things... thanks for the clues as to where to look.. On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 08:19:41AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > Try linux-source-*. The kernel packaging has changed substantially > since my book was published. > > I am working on a new edition. Unfortunately, I cannot foresee > a release date yet. Must be quite a job keeping up with a moving target like the Debian system... I hate the thought of throwing away my well thumbed first edition, but I suppose it is inevitable. Maybe you should think of putting out a yearly addendum between editions. I'd subscribe ;) Are there, incidentally, any journals out there that are particulalry good for debian users? > > Can anyone explain what the reasonaing is behind this > > organization? > > Did you see kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org? Thanks, stumbled across a link to this on the debian.org site after I sent the original message. Still reading... Regards, DigbyT -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel source packages..
also sprach Digby Tarvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.04.14.0252 +0200]: > The example in my Martin Kraft book refers to: > apt-get install kernel-source-2.6.8 > but I can't find a 'kernel-source-anything'.. Try linux-source-*. The kernel packaging has changed substantially since my book was published. I am working on a new edition. Unfortunately, I cannot foresee a release date yet. > Can anyone explain what the reasonaing is behind this > organization? Did you see kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org? -- .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems (a)bort, (r)etry, (p)retend this never happened digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Re: Kernel source packages..
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:52:41AM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: > Can anyone shed any light on the differences between the > various kernel source packages in the repository, kernel-source-* are for sarge and below linux-source-* are for etch and beyond Then do apt-cache show $PACKAGE and read the Description: (for example, difference between linux-source-2.6.18 and linux-tree-2.6.18) > and which is > the best choice for just being able to reproduce the running kernel? apt-cache show linux-image-$(uname -r)|grep ^Source: Possibly it will return that the source package for your running kernel is linux-2.6 then (if you use deb-src lines in sources.list) grep -A1 "^Package: linux-2.6" /var/lib/apt/lists/*_Sources|less will show all binary packages produced by the linux-2.6 source package. Chose the linux-source-* or linux-tree-* or whatever you prefer (possibly linux-source-2.6.18 or linux-source-2.6.24). If you want to recompile, also apt-cache show kernel-package might be useful -- Chi usa software non libero avvelena anche te. Digli di smettere. Informatica=arsenico: minime dosi in rari casi patologici, altrimenti letale. Informatica=bomba: intelligente solo per gli stupidi che ci credono. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel source packages..
> Can anyone shed any light on the differences between > the various kernel source packages in the repository, > and which is the best choice for just being able to > reproduce the running kernel? > > The example in my Martin Kraft book refers to: > apt-get install kernel-source-2.6.8 > but I can't find a 'kernel-source-anything'.. The book is great, but already a bit out of date. Krafft has a website (not recently updated) which includes error corrections and new information here: http://debiansystem.info If you read the section of the book discussing the naming of kernel-related packages -- including images, headers-only packages, and source packages -- then all of the information is correct... it's just that Debian policy renamed 'kernel-*' to 'linux-*' many moons ago (back at kernel 2.6.12, I believe). See this: http://debiansystem.info/readers/changes/260-package-names HTH, Dave Witbrodt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kernel source packages..
Can anyone shed any light on the differences between the various kernel source packages in the repository, and which is the best choice for just being able to reproduce the running kernel? The example in my Martin Kraft book refers to: apt-get install kernel-source-2.6.8 but I can't find a 'kernel-source-anything'.. The docs on debian.org suggest apt-get install linux-source-2.6 but looking in the repository I also see linux-source as well as linux-tree-2.6.18-n where n is a number between 1 and 8, and there are also linux-tree-2.6.18.dfag.1-n where n is 9-19, some with 'etch' followed by a digit appaended. The above are all 'v' packages. There is also linux-source-2.6.18 and linux-tree-2.6.18 which are actual packages. Can anyone explain what the reasonaing is behind this organization? Thanks, DigbyT -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question about kernel source packages
On 08/28/2007 02:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting "Mumia W.." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On 08/28/2007 12:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of debian patches. Has the kernel source already been patched or would one need to patch it with all of the included debian patches when building a custom kernel? It's already patched. Doublechecking, you are absolutely positive? Read the files README.Debian and Debian.src.changelog in the kernel source directory. If those files exist, and if their contents suggest that the kernel has been patched (they do here), then the kernel source has already been patched. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question about kernel source packages
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:15:08 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting "Mumia W.." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On 08/28/2007 12:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of > >> debian patches. Has the kernel source already been patched or would > >> one need to patch it with all of the included debian patches when > >> building a custom kernel? > >> > > > > It's already patched. > > Doublechecking, you are absolutely positive? I believe he's correct. From the description of linux-patch-debian-2.6.22: > Description: Debian patches to version 2.6.22 of the Linux kernel > This package includes the patches used to produce the prepackaged > linux-source-2.6.22 package, as well as architecture-specific patches. Note > that these patches do NOT apply against a pristine Linux 2.6.22 kernel but > only > against the kernel tarball linux-2.6_2.6.22.orig.tar.gz from the Debian > archive. So the prepackaged kernel source has already been patched. The patch has been applied against the mentioned Debian tarball. All this is AFAICT. Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question about kernel source packages
Quoting "Mumia W.." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On 08/28/2007 12:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of debian patches. Has the kernel source already been patched or would one need to patch it with all of the included debian patches when building a custom kernel? It's already patched. Doublechecking, you are absolutely positive? "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question about kernel source packages
On 08/28/2007 12:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of debian patches. Has the kernel source already been patched or would one need to patch it with all of the included debian patches when building a custom kernel? It's already patched. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
question about kernel source packages
I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of debian patches. Has the kernel source already been patched or would one need to patch it with all of the included debian patches when building a custom kernel? "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Browsing source packages
Aptitude lets people browse the binary packages that are available for Debian--very nice. But what do I do if I want to browse the source packages? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~mumia.w.18.spam/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
On Sunday 22 October 2006 15:41, Florian Kulzer wrote: > If your package manager lists these packages as upgradable then you > either have not run "update" in a while or the progeny mirror is > seriously broken or you have found a bug in the package manager. > I had the same problem in Etch a few days ago, so I upgraded to a stock kernel and then used module-assistant to build the nvidia drivers. IIRC I had to change the symlinks for gcc and g++ because the nvidia drivers would not compile (I am not sure whether they compile with gcc or g++) with 4.1 but did compile with 4.0 8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 08:08:28 -0500, Henry Hollenberg wrote: > Marc Wilson wrote: > >On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: > > > >>So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being > >>upgradeable? > > > > > > Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely > >updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pulse to finish. You > >won't die. > > > >Sheesh. Not like this is rocket science. > > Ok, it's October 22nd and I still can't get "nvidia-kernel-source" > off the mirror I'm using. How long do these "pulses" take? > > Here is my sources.list: > > andy:/home/hgh# cat /etc/apt/sources.list > > deb http://archive.progeny.com/debian testing main contrib non-free > deb-src http://archive.progeny.com/debian testing main contrib non-free > deb http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing > testing/security-updates main contrib non-free The package is not in Etch at all at the moment and the same goes for nvidia-glx: http://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers.html [2006-04-18] nvidia-graphics-drivers REMOVED from testing If your package manager lists these packages as upgradable then you either have not run "update" in a while or the progeny mirror is seriously broken or you have found a bug in the package manager. -- Regards, Florian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing {Scanned} {Scanned}
Marc Wilson wrote: On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being upgradeable? Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pulse to finish. You won't die. Sheesh. Not like this is rocket science. Ok, it's October 22nd and I still can't get "nvidia-kernel-source" off the mirror I'm using. How long do these "pulses" take? Here is my sources.list: andy:/home/hgh# cat /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://archive.progeny.com/debian testing main contrib non-free deb-src http://archive.progeny.com/debian testing main contrib non-free deb http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing testing/security-updates main contrib non-free hgh. -- Henry Hollenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
On Mon October 16 2006 06:47 am, David Baron wrote: > Yes, they are "closed" but the drivers are apparently the same. The glx > maybe not. I get much better results with those on Nvidia's site than those > on Sid. I keep the Sid nvidia-kernel-source package around because when > this is upgrades, so is there's. I'm running the ones from sid now and they seem to be working fine, I built them with m-a. From packages a week or so old. I'm just looking over a mirror and it looks like pre-built modules are there. Not sure if I can believe my eyes but that's what I see.. I must go try.. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:05:39PM -0400, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote: > On Sunday 15 October 2006 21:39, Marc Wilson wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: > > > So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being > > > upgradeable? > > > > Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely > > updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pulse to finish. You > > won't die. > > > > Sheesh. Not like this is rocket science. > > > > People are trying and willing to learn. That is more important than whether > the problem at hand is trivial or challenging. If you think that is trivial > and not worthy of a reply then dont post it. It might be trivial once you > know it. But it could be puzzling if you dont know how it all works... > > raju Here Here! Such an inconsistancy, even if temporary, should either be prominently documented, reported to the user as a meaningful error, or treated as a bug in the mirror system. The mirror should be updated prior to updateing the packages file, even if this means using 'snapshot' of the old mirror for access until this is complete. What's the problem with rocket science? The relavent physics are WELL DOCUMENTED so problems can be traced. Shoot something up, it will fall down. Shoot it up far enough and the planet will have moved before it gets 'down' and it will fall perpetually (except for drag); its called orbit. Shoot it up still farther and it will get to where you're going before it gets back 'here'. Simple. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
On Sunday 15 October 2006 21:39, Marc Wilson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: > > So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being > > upgradeable? > > Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely > updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pulse to finish. You > won't die. > > Sheesh. Not like this is rocket science. > People are trying and willing to learn. That is more important than whether the problem at hand is trivial or challenging. If you think that is trivial and not worthy of a reply then dont post it. It might be trivial once you know it. But it could be puzzling if you dont know how it all works... raju -- Kamaraju S Kusumanchi http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/ http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
On Monday 16 October 2006 02:08, Damon L. Chesser wrote: > Robert Baldwin wrote: > > i am using debian etch/testing and the mirror us.debian.org > > <http://us.debian.org>. when i try to install nvidia-glx and > > nvidia-kernel-source it fails b/c they don't exist here (on the > > mirror). however the nvidia-glx-legacy and nvidia-kernel-legacy-source > > packages are there. when i viewed this mirror with firefox, sarge and > > sid have the packages but not etch. i have no idea why this is?. go > > see for yourself- http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/. > > i think this is very important for the developers. thank you > > I can verify this. Those two packages show up in apt-cache and > synaptic. If I do a dist-upgrade (running Sid) it lists those packages > as going to be updated. The download fails. Browser over to the > packages, and there is no nvidia-glx or nvidia-kernel package that is > listed in synaptic. > > W: Failed to fetch > http://debian.mirrors.tds.net/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-driver >s/nvidia-glx_1.0.8774-5_i386.deb 404 Not Found > > > W: Failed to fetch > http://debian.mirrors.tds.net/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-driver >s/nvidia-kernel-source_1.0.8774-5_i386.deb 404 Not Found > > So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being > upgradeable? > Yes, they are "closed" but the drivers are apparently the same. The glx maybe not. I get much better results with those on Nvidia's site than those on Sid. I keep the Sid nvidia-kernel-source package around because when this is upgrades, so is there's. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
Marc Wilson wrote: On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being upgradeable? Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pulse to finish. You won't die. Sheesh. Not like this is rocket science. Marc, Just wanted to let you know, with your info about mirrors, I used apt-spy to get me a different mirror and I was able to get the missing packages. For what ever reason THAT mirror is not updating. Thanks. -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
Marc Wilson wrote: On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being upgradeable? Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pulse to finish. You won't die. Sheesh. Not like this is rocket science. Forgot to add: Thanks for the info! I did not know that. -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
Marc Wilson wrote: On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being upgradeable? Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pulse to finish. You won't die. Sheesh. Not like this is rocket science. In six years of debian, I have never seen this before. It has been 5 days since the OP remarks. Sorry I don't measure up to your level of knowledge of debian packaging. Notice, I did as ask how this can happen? -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
On Monday 16 October 2006 01:39, Marc Wilson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: > > So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being > > upgradeable? > > Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely > updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pulse to finish. You > won't die. > > Sheesh. Not like this is rocket science. I missed the first post in this thread, but I used deb-src from "unstable" when I had the same problem. YMMV but that solved it for this "rocketier". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: > So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being > upgradeable? Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pulse to finish. You won't die. Sheesh. Not like this is rocket science. -- Marc Wilson | I can't think about that. It doesn't go with HEDGES [EMAIL PROTECTED] | in the shape of LITTLE LULU -- or ROBOTS making | BRICKS ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source packages not in debian etch/testing
Robert Baldwin wrote: i am using debian etch/testing and the mirror us.debian.org <http://us.debian.org>. when i try to install nvidia-glx and nvidia-kernel-source it fails b/c they don't exist here (on the mirror). however the nvidia-glx-legacy and nvidia-kernel-legacy-source packages are there. when i viewed this mirror with firefox, sarge and sid have the packages but not etch. i have no idea why this is?. go see for yourself- http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/. i think this is very important for the developers. thank you I can verify this. Those two packages show up in apt-cache and synaptic. If I do a dist-upgrade (running Sid) it lists those packages as going to be updated. The download fails. Browser over to the packages, and there is no nvidia-glx or nvidia-kernel package that is listed in synaptic. W: Failed to fetch http://debian.mirrors.tds.net/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-glx_1.0.8774-5_i386.deb 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://debian.mirrors.tds.net/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-kernel-source_1.0.8774-5_i386.deb 404 Not Found So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being upgradeable? -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
