On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 08:08:08AM +0100, Volker Sturm wrote:
Hi,
if I want to get into software development for Debian: Is it recommended to
stay with stable or upgrade to sid?
Basically depends on your target audience:
* Stable is in bug-fixes mode only, so no new software will get into it,
My other questions have to do with what I should read to learn how to properly
debianize this package. As far as I know it is free-ware, but may end up
under non-free.
For debianization:
http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/
To ensure that the software is free:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:41:14AM -0500, Kevin J. Kalupson wrote:
There is a biology/bio-informatics package which I would like to add to
debian.
Interesting :)
I have easily installed this package under woody and would like to
know what steps I should take to turn this piece of
Hello,
Is there a right way for using the source of a different
debian-package?
I've checked the archives, but I only found
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2001/debian-mentors-200103/msg00253.html
which is a little bit dated and without really positive outcome. The
best suggestion was
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:17:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello,
Is there a right way for using the source of a different
debian-package?
For ocaml, i supply an ocaml-source package for other folk to use it.
I've checked the archives, but I only found
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:42:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:17:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Is there a right way for using the source of a different
debian-package?
For ocaml, i supply an ocaml-source package for other folk to use it.
Hello,
That's the
Hello,
I'd like to move this discussion to the exim4debian ml.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:23:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
If you're wondering: The package in question would be exim v4 with the
exiscan patch applied. - It cannot simply be built from the exim4
source-package because the
Hi.
Situation: A program is provided in three archives, one for the source,
one for the documentation in html (~3MB), one for the documentation in
postscript (~2,3MB).
How would you package this? One binary package and one with all the
documentation or two seperate -doc packages?
Greetings,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:15:11PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:42:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:17:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Is there a right way for using the source of a different
debian-package?
For ocaml, i supply an
Hi.
pbuilder has a login feature that allows me to get a shell inside the
chroot, but I'm not sure how to get my package in there. I can copy it
in from outside, but I belive the location of the chroot changes every
time. It looks like all the hooks get called inside the chroot, so I
suspect
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 08:31:57AM -0800, Brett Cundal wrote:
pbuilder has a login feature that allows me to get a shell inside the
chroot, but I'm not sure how to get my package in there. I can copy it
in from outside, but I belive the location of the chroot changes every
time. It looks
Brett Cundal wrote:
pbuilder has a login feature that allows me to get a shell inside the
chroot, but I'm not sure how to get my package in there. I can copy it
in from outside, but I belive the location of the chroot changes every
time. It looks like all the hooks get called inside the chroot, so
Brett Cundal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:22:51AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Volker Sturm wrote:
if I want to get into software development for Debian: Is it recommended to
stay with stable or upgrade to sid?
If you have to ask,
Michael Banck wrote:
Seriously, with a nice net connection you can setup another (not
compressed) chroot with debootstrap in a matter of minutes for testing
stuff.
One thing I like about pbuilder is that changes you make while in the shell are
effectively discarded upon exit. With the persistent
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:27:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Lately F-Prot has started offering their own deb, but it is rather
broken. Therefore I think that the f-prot-installer package still has a
reason to exist.
Have you talked to them about it? A good responsive upstream can make
all
Checking the license on some software the I would like to add.
Does this copyright meet the debian requirements. I'm thinking this package
would end up in non-free if it does qualify.
/*** Copyright Notice */
The ARB software and documentation are not in the public
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:17:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Is there a right way for using the source of a different
debian-package?
Look into apt-src if you are interested in developing this kind of idea.
The source-dependency approach has many pitfalls, and is not something that
is
[cc'ing colin so that maybe he will add something to his page about
dchroot.]
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:19:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 08:31:57AM -0800, Brett Cundal wrote:
Is there some other way to handle this automatically?
Yeah: get a decent chroot ;)
Kevin J. Kalupson wrote:
Checking the license on some software the I would like to add.
Does this copyright meet the debian requirements.
Not the Debian Free Software Guidelines
would end up in non-free if it does qualify.
if it does not, it can/will end up in non-free
This release of the ARB
There is a biology/bio-informatics package which I would like to add to
debian. I have easily installed this package under woody and would like to
know what steps I should take to turn this piece of software into a deb.
My first question is Am I writing to the correct list?. If I am not
Hi,
if I want to get into software development for Debian: Is it recommended to
stay with stable or upgrade to sid?
Regards,
Volker Sturm
--
Volker Sturm
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging more http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!
Kevin J. Kalupson wrote:
There is a biology/bio-informatics package which I would like to add to
debian. I have easily installed this package under woody and would like to
know what steps I should take to turn this piece of software into a deb.
My first question is Am I writing to the correct
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 08:08:08AM +0100, Volker Sturm wrote:
Hi,
if I want to get into software development for Debian: Is it recommended to
stay with stable or upgrade to sid?
Basically depends on your target audience:
* Stable is in bug-fixes mode only, so no new software will get into it,
My other questions have to do with what I should read to learn how to
properly
debianize this package. As far as I know it is free-ware, but may end up
under non-free.
For debianization:
http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/
To ensure that the software is free:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:41:14AM -0500, Kevin J. Kalupson wrote:
There is a biology/bio-informatics package which I would like to add to
debian.
Interesting :)
I have easily installed this package under woody and would like to
know what steps I should take to turn this piece of
Hello,
Is there a right way for using the source of a different
debian-package?
I've checked the archives, but I only found
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2001/debian-mentors-200103/msg00253.html
which is a little bit dated and without really positive outcome. The
best suggestion was
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Volker Sturm wrote:
if I want to get into software development for Debian: Is it recommended to
stay with stable or upgrade to sid?
If you have to ask, stay with stable. You can use pbuilder to build
unstable packages.
--
One disk to rule them all, One disk to find
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:17:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello,
Is there a right way for using the source of a different
debian-package?
For ocaml, i supply an ocaml-source package for other folk to use it.
I've checked the archives, but I only found
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:42:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:17:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Is there a right way for using the source of a different
debian-package?
For ocaml, i supply an ocaml-source package for other folk to use it.
Hello,
That's the
Andreas,
If you're wondering: The package in question would be exim v4 with the
exiscan patch applied. - It cannot simply be built from the exim4
source-package because the patch is released more often than exim
itself (current-version is already 4.12-24).
Hrm, what does it need the patch
Hello,
I'd like to move this discussion to the exim4debian ml.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:23:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
If you're wondering: The package in question would be exim v4 with the
exiscan patch applied. - It cannot simply be built from the exim4
source-package because the
Hi.
Situation: A program is provided in three archives, one for the source,
one for the documentation in html (~3MB), one for the documentation in
postscript (~2,3MB).
How would you package this? One binary package and one with all the
documentation or two seperate -doc packages?
Greetings,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:15:11PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:42:21PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:17:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Is there a right way for using the source of a different
debian-package?
For ocaml, i supply an
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 03:53:06PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
Hi.
Situation: A program is provided in three archives, one for the source,
one for the documentation in html (~3MB), one for the documentation in
postscript (~2,3MB).
How would you package this? One binary package and one
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:22:51AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Volker Sturm wrote:
if I want to get into software development for Debian: Is it recommended to
stay with stable or upgrade to sid?
If you have to ask, stay with stable. You can use pbuilder
Hi.
pbuilder has a login feature that allows me to get a shell inside the
chroot, but I'm not sure how to get my package in there. I can copy it
in from outside, but I belive the location of the chroot changes every
time. It looks like all the hooks get called inside the chroot, so I
suspect
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 08:31:57AM -0800, Brett Cundal wrote:
pbuilder has a login feature that allows me to get a shell inside the
chroot, but I'm not sure how to get my package in there. I can copy it
in from outside, but I belive the location of the chroot changes every
time. It looks
Hello,
due to filing too many bug reports I have been coerced ;-) to take over
maintainership of the f-prot-installer package in contrib.
The package is intended to install the F-Prot for Small Business virus
scanner which is availabe at http://www.f-prot.com/getfplinfree.html
Lately F-Prot has
Brett Cundal wrote:
pbuilder has a login feature that allows me to get a shell inside the
chroot, but I'm not sure how to get my package in there. I can copy it
in from outside, but I belive the location of the chroot changes every
time. It looks like all the hooks get called inside the chroot,
Brett Cundal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:22:51AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Volker Sturm wrote:
if I want to get into software development for Debian: Is it recommended to
stay with stable or upgrade to sid?
If you have to ask,
Michael Banck wrote:
Seriously, with a nice net connection you can setup another (not
compressed) chroot with debootstrap in a matter of minutes for testing
stuff.
One thing I like about pbuilder is that changes you make while in the shell are
effectively discarded upon exit. With the
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:27:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Lately F-Prot has started offering their own deb, but it is rather
broken. Therefore I think that the f-prot-installer package still has a
reason to exist.
Have you talked to them about it? A good responsive upstream can make
all
Checking the license on some software the I would like to add.
Does this copyright meet the debian requirements. I'm thinking this package
would end up in non-free if it does qualify.
/*** Copyright Notice */
The ARB software and documentation are not in the public
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Small) writes:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:27:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Lately F-Prot has started offering their own deb, but it is rather
broken. Therefore I think that the f-prot-installer package still has a
reason to exist.
Have you talked to them
Kevin,
---
# Debian Free Software Guidelines
2. 1 Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form.---
* http://www.debian.org/social_contract
The copyright you posted doesn't say anything about this. You'd have to
make
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 08:08:08AM +0100, Volker Sturm wrote:
if I want to get into software development for Debian: Is it recommended to
stay with stable or upgrade to sid?
Like most other things, there is a tradeoff here which depends on what your
needs are.
If you're developing software ON
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:17:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Is there a right way for using the source of a different
debian-package?
Look into apt-src if you are interested in developing this kind of idea.
The source-dependency approach has many pitfalls, and is not something that
is
[cc'ing colin so that maybe he will add something to his page about
dchroot.]
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 06:19:46PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 08:31:57AM -0800, Brett Cundal wrote:
Is there some other way to handle this automatically?
Yeah: get a decent chroot ;)
Kevin J. Kalupson wrote:
Checking the license on some software the I would like to add.
Does this copyright meet the debian requirements.
Not the Debian Free Software Guidelines
would end up in non-free if it does qualify.
if it does not, it can/will end up in non-free
This release of
49 matches
Mail list logo
