Re: Getting Packages Into Debian

2002-02-17 Thread Oohara Yuuma
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 16:59:23 +1100, Mitchell Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also is there a way I can set up my own http / ftp site that can be used as a source for apt-get so people can install the unofficial packages? for a potato system and the http method:

Re: Getting Packages Into Debian

2002-02-17 Thread Stephen Stafford
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 04:59:23PM +1100, Mitchell Smith wrote: Hi list, Hi, your mailer appears to be seriously broken BTW. You should wrap lines at 70 characters or so, certainly no more than 80 :) I have packaged a number of packages that aren't currently in the debian distribution.

Easy way to create a binary-only .DEB??

2002-02-17 Thread Craig
Hi all, Here's what i'm trying to do: * Create a .DEB that contains only 2 simple binaries, plus a couple of dependencies. (i'll have another package, tar ball for right now, for the source code). Can that be done? You don't *REQUIRE* the source code to be in the .deb, do you? Or is that

Re: Easy way to create a binary-only .DEB??

2002-02-17 Thread Ben Armstrong
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 09:21:11AM -0500, Craig wrote: Hi all, Here's what i'm trying to do: * Create a .DEB that contains only 2 simple binaries, plus a couple of dependencies. (i'll have another package, tar ball for right now, for the source code). Deb packages contain binaries

Re: Easy way to create a binary-only .DEB??

2002-02-17 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 09:21:11AM -0500, Craig wrote: Here's what i'm trying to do: * Create a .DEB that contains only 2 simple binaries, plus a couple of dependencies. (i'll have another package, tar ball for right now, for the source code). Is this for your personal use, or is it

Re: Moving a package from main to non-US/main

2002-02-17 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
* Michael Beattie | On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:43:32PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote: |IIRC, it is not non-US/main but simply non-US. |Other sections are non-US/contrib and non-US/non-free. | | either works. 2.1.7. Subsections -- [snip] * `non-US',

Proper section for perl manpages

2002-02-17 Thread Duncan Findlay
I was wondering what the proper extensions for perl manpages are. My package, spamassassin, currently installs a lot of manpages in section 3 as *.3p.gz. In perl policy, it states that this should be *.3perl.gz, but I've also noticed a large number of packages we *.3pm.gz manpages. Could anyone

Re: Proper section for perl manpages

2002-02-17 Thread Joey Hess
Duncan Findlay wrote: I was wondering what the proper extensions for perl manpages are. My package, spamassassin, currently installs a lot of manpages in section 3 as *.3p.gz. In perl policy, it states that this should be *.3perl.gz, but I've also noticed a large number of packages we

Re: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath

2002-02-17 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:00:44AM +0100, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: ldconfig generates ld.so.cache. ld.so.cache is used by ld.so to know which paths should be used. Please note that this filtering mechanism is crucial when RPATH isn't used, since there is only one ordering of paths for

Getting Packages Into Debian

2002-02-17 Thread Mitchell Smith
Hi list, I have packaged a number of packages that aren't currently in the debian distribution. I am in the middle of sending emails off to the authors of these packages to ask them weather it is ok to distribute the Debian Packaged versions of there software. My question to this list is,

Re: Getting Packages Into Debian

2002-02-17 Thread Oohara Yuuma
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 16:59:23 +1100, Mitchell Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also is there a way I can set up my own http / ftp site that can be used as a source for apt-get so people can install the unofficial packages? for a potato system and the http method:

Re: Getting Packages Into Debian

2002-02-17 Thread Stephen Stafford
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 04:59:23PM +1100, Mitchell Smith wrote: Hi list, Hi, your mailer appears to be seriously broken BTW. You should wrap lines at 70 characters or so, certainly no more than 80 :) I have packaged a number of packages that aren't currently in the debian distribution.

Easy way to create a binary-only .DEB??

2002-02-17 Thread Craig
Hi all, Here's what i'm trying to do: * Create a .DEB that contains only 2 simple binaries, plus a couple of dependencies. (i'll have another package, tar ball for right now, for the source code). Can that be done? You don't *REQUIRE* the source code to be in the .deb, do you? Or is that

Re: Easy way to create a binary-only .DEB??

2002-02-17 Thread Ben Armstrong
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 09:21:11AM -0500, Craig wrote: Hi all, Here's what i'm trying to do: * Create a .DEB that contains only 2 simple binaries, plus a couple of dependencies. (i'll have another package, tar ball for right now, for the source code). Deb packages contain binaries and

Re: Easy way to create a binary-only .DEB??

2002-02-17 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 09:21:11AM -0500, Craig wrote: Here's what i'm trying to do: * Create a .DEB that contains only 2 simple binaries, plus a couple of dependencies. (i'll have another package, tar ball for right now, for the source code). Is this for your personal use, or is it

Re: Easy way to create a binary-only .DEB??

2002-02-17 Thread Warren Turkal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Craig, could you please describe more fully what you want to do? Are you trying to take a precompiled program (like distributed-net) and package it for use or are you compiling the program and only want binary packages available? - -- Warren GPG

Re: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath

2002-02-17 Thread Kjetil Torgrim Homme
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I mean hard path as in an absolute location. That is the problem with RPATH; it puts absolute locations into the binaries. If the library moves, the program stops working. So if the program contained the full path to libc.so.6, we couldn't move it

Re: Moving a package from main to non-US/main

2002-02-17 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
* Michael Beattie | On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 01:43:32PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote: |IIRC, it is not non-US/main but simply non-US. |Other sections are non-US/contrib and non-US/non-free. | | either works. 2.1.7. Subsections -- [snip] * `non-US', `non-US/contrib'

Re: Moving a package from main to non-US/main

2002-02-17 Thread Josip Rodin
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:28:57AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: |IIRC, it is not non-US/main but simply non-US. |Other sections are non-US/contrib and non-US/non-free. | | either works. 2.1.7. Subsections -- [snip] * `non-US', `non-US/contrib' or

Re: Moving a package from main to non-US/main

2002-02-17 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
* Josip Rodin | So it should be non-US. non-US/main works just because it is such a | common error. | | Or maybe it works because it's pointless and absurd to force people to use | just one name when the other sounds perfectly fine, too. Hmm, I saw some comment about this when we discussed

Proper section for perl manpages

2002-02-17 Thread Duncan Findlay
I was wondering what the proper extensions for perl manpages are. My package, spamassassin, currently installs a lot of manpages in section 3 as *.3p.gz. In perl policy, it states that this should be *.3perl.gz, but I've also noticed a large number of packages we *.3pm.gz manpages. Could anyone

Re: Proper section for perl manpages

2002-02-17 Thread Joey Hess
Duncan Findlay wrote: I was wondering what the proper extensions for perl manpages are. My package, spamassassin, currently installs a lot of manpages in section 3 as *.3p.gz. In perl policy, it states that this should be *.3perl.gz, but I've also noticed a large number of packages we

Re: Proper section for perl manpages

2002-02-17 Thread Duncan Findlay
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 10:59:45PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Duncan Findlay wrote: I was wondering what the proper extensions for perl manpages are. My package, spamassassin, currently installs a lot of manpages in section 3 as *.3p.gz. In perl policy, it states that this should be