On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 04:36:31PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > OK, so call it water-demo or waterdemo or something along those lines.
> > I looked through the output of 'dpkg -l' on one of my systems and
> > saw very few packages with plain English na
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, so call it water-demo or waterdemo or something along those lines.
> I looked through the output of 'dpkg -l' on one of my systems and
> saw very few packages with plain English names.
And this is significant because ... ?
-Miles
--
To UNSUBSC
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I disagree. The policy is to avoid namespace polution, which means
> that package names should be as specific as possible. Imagine if
> the first 26 packages were named a through z, just because they
> could be and they were first come first served?
I
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:38:15PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I disagree. The policy is to avoid namespace polution, which means
> > that package names should be as specific as possible. Imagine if
> > the first 26 packages were named a through z, j
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 10:37:10AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> I disagree; `water' seems like a great name.
>
> If it were a word that referred to common activity, then it might be
> considered too generic, but it's not.
>
> It seems very unlikely that there will be other packages competing for
>
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Pete Lypkie wrote:
> First of all, i believe you should compile 2.2.17 with gcc version 2.7.2
I compile my 2.2 kernels with gcc 2.95.2, no problem.
hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:09:40AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Does the md5 sum of the .orig.tar.gz have to be the same as the one of
> the upstream tarball ?
>
> Some people ofter unpack the upstream tarball and rename the directory
> so that the latter comply with the Debian Policy. However,
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I disagree. The policy is to avoid namespace polution, which means
> that package names should be as specific as possible. Imagine if
> the first 26 packages were named a through z, just because they
> could be and they were first come first served?
I
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 10:37:10AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> I disagree; `water' seems like a great name.
>
> If it were a word that referred to common activity, then it might be
> considered too generic, but it's not.
>
> It seems very unlikely that there will be other packages competing for
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Pete Lypkie wrote:
> First of all, i believe you should compile 2.2.17 with gcc version 2.7.2
I compile my 2.2 kernels with gcc 2.95.2, no problem.
hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:09:40AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Does the md5 sum of the .orig.tar.gz have to be the same as the one of
> the upstream tarball ?
>
> Some people ofter unpack the upstream tarball and rename the directory
> so that the latter comply with the Debian Policy. However,
Hello,
I packaged linkchecker and need someone to sponsor it.
Package: linkchecker
Version: 1.2.10
URL: http://linkchecker.sourceforge.net/
License: GPL
LinkChecker can check HTML documents for broken links.
thanks, Bastian Kleineidam
-8<- original ITP 8<--
Package: wnpp
Sever
Hello,
I packaged linkchecker and need someone to sponsor it.
Package: linkchecker
Version: 1.2.10
URL: http://linkchecker.sourceforge.net/
License: GPL
LinkChecker can check HTML documents for broken links.
thanks, Bastian Kleineidam
-8<- original ITP 8<--
Package: wnpp
Seve
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 11:13:14PM -0800, Mike Markley wrote:
> > As read from packaging-manual, there're two ways to handle
> > system specific config files, one to list them in debian/conffiles,
> > the other is (optionally write a /usr/bin/pkgxxxconfig to aid) to
> > write/modify the config file
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 11:13:14PM -0800, Mike Markley wrote:
> > As read from packaging-manual, there're two ways to handle
> > system specific config files, one to list them in debian/conffiles,
> > the other is (optionally write a /usr/bin/pkgxxxconfig to aid) to
> > write/modify the config fil
* "Britton" == Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Britton> I just went to check for bugs, and I notice that the upload I
Britton> made for the last couple seems to be reported as having been
Britton> an NMU upload.
It would be more useful, if you gave some of the bug numbers where
this happened.
I just went to check for bugs, and I notice that the upload I made for the
last couple seems to be reported as having been an NMU upload. Now I
would say mayby I did something wrong, but how is this possible when I
only have (so far as I know) one identity and key which I can be use to
sign packa
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 11:20:02PM +0800, Zhao Wei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake
forth:
> As read from packaging-manual, there're two ways to handle
> system specific config files, one to list them in debian/conffiles,
> the other is (optionally write a /usr/bin/pkgxxxconfig to aid) to
> write/modify
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 05:53:24PM +0800, Zhao Wei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake
forth:
> Sometime a ``dpkg -S /usr/bin/f'' fails to print out the package
> which owns it. Could you please tell me why this may happen? i.e. what
> is the possible reason(s) for it? Thanks!
Most likely /usr/bin/
* "Britton" == Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Britton> I just went to check for bugs, and I notice that the upload I
Britton> made for the last couple seems to be reported as having been
Britton> an NMU upload.
It would be more useful, if you gave some of the bug numbers where
this happened
I just went to check for bugs, and I notice that the upload I made for the
last couple seems to be reported as having been an NMU upload. Now I
would say mayby I did something wrong, but how is this possible when I
only have (so far as I know) one identity and key which I can be use to
sign pack
21 matches
Mail list logo
