Hi John,
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, John Morrissey wrote:
> I maintain mod_ldap_userdir and am interested in packaging it for Debian. It
> allows UserDir URLs to be looked up based on homeDirectory attributes in an
> LDAP directory instead of from local user accounts.
>
> In the past year or two, sever
Hi,
W liście z wto, 08-06-2004, godz. 17:14, Remco Seesink pisze:
> > b) at the top of LICENSE file, which is otherwise pure GPL? This
> > exception seems to fit more into a file that would be called i.e.
> > COPYING, where the copying informations would be held and which
> > would contain the "e
Hi,
W liście z wto, 08-06-2004, godz. 17:14, Remco Seesink pisze:
> > b) at the top of LICENSE file, which is otherwise pure GPL? This
> > exception seems to fit more into a file that would be called i.e.
> > COPYING, where the copying informations would be held and which
> > would contain the "e
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:36:00PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Note that the testing output says removal fails due to buggyness of the
> package: http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/aiksaurus.html
> # Trying to remove package, not update it
> # libaiksaurus-data (alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:02:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Similar, for libapache-mod-filter, there is:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ madison libapache-mod-filter
> libapache-mod-filter | 1.4-5 |stable | source, alpha, arm, hppa,
> i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
* Goswin von Brederlow [Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:24:49 +0200]:
> > P.S.: Of course, if there is a better place to ask about a build on a
> > specific arch, I'll gladly take any advice.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
is this the right place to ask for a rebuild? i posted in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
some time ago
> I haven't looked at this particular case, but it should be just fine to
> say "the copyright owner gave permission to do this" (as long as it's
> not specific to Debian, etc.), without necessarily having to wait for a
> new upstream release. Of course, I'd be inclined to include the full
> text o
> 1. Why do *you* add the exception that permits for linking w/ some
> GPL-incompatible program
> a) in a debian-specific diff? The exception has to be granted by
> upstream and they have to release a version that has this exception.
> You must not add it yourself!
The license is from the 0.98 ve
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:02:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Similar, for libapache-mod-filter, there is:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ madison libapache-mod-filter
> libapache-mod-filter | 1.4-5 |stable | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386,
> ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
> 2. I don't like the "No Nonsense Copyright and License for JSRS
> JavaScript Remote Scripting". It seems that debian-legal didn't like
> it either. Again you should try to contact upstream and explain
> the problem. Dual licensing w/ GPL (or LGPL) would be an option
Aargh. I somehow missed:
ht
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:16:52AM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> > I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> > Testers are also welcome.
>
> Hi Remco,
>
> Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at run
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:36:00PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Note that the testing output says removal fails due to buggyness of the
> package: http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/aiksaurus.html
> # Trying to remove package, not update it
> # libaiksaurus-data (alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64
> 2. I don't like the "No Nonsense Copyright and License for JSRS
> JavaScript Remote Scripting". It seems that debian-legal didn't like
> it either. Again you should try to contact upstream and explain
> the problem. Dual licensing w/ GPL (or LGPL) would be an option
Aargh. I somehow missed:
ht
* Goswin von Brederlow [Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:24:49 +0200]:
> > P.S.: Of course, if there is a better place to ask about a build on a
> > specific arch, I'll gladly take any advice.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
is this the right place to ask for a rebuild? i posted in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
some time ago
> I haven't looked at this particular case, but it should be just fine to
> say "the copyright owner gave permission to do this" (as long as it's
> not specific to Debian, etc.), without necessarily having to wait for a
> new upstream release. Of course, I'd be inclined to include the full
> text o
> 1. Why do *you* add the exception that permits for linking w/ some
> GPL-incompatible program
> a) in a debian-specific diff? The exception has to be granted by
> upstream and they have to release a version that has this exception.
> You must not add it yourself!
The license is from the 0.98 ve
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:16:52AM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> > I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> > Testers are also welcome.
>
> Hi Remco,
>
> Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at run
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> Testers are also welcome.
Hi Remco,
Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at runtime
though. In the non-technical part - I see troubles with the
copyrigh
I maintain mod_ldap_userdir and am interested in packaging it for Debian. It
allows UserDir URLs to be looked up based on homeDirectory attributes in an
LDAP directory instead of from local user accounts.
In the past year or two, several Debian users have mentioned using it, so
I'd like to package
Hi!
I've just uploaded netdump package to mentors.debian.net and now am
seeking for a sponsor for this package.
The netdump client sets up the kernel to send crash dumps and/or
console messages as syslog packets to a remote system.
The netdump server listens to the network for crashed kernels to
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:12, Remco Seesink wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for comments about my packaging of ibwebadmin.
> Testers are also welcome.
Hi Remco,
Technically I looked fine for me. I have not tested it at runtime
though. In the non-technical part - I see troubles with the
copyrigh
I maintain mod_ldap_userdir and am interested in packaging it for Debian. It
allows UserDir URLs to be looked up based on homeDirectory attributes in an
LDAP directory instead of from local user accounts.
In the past year or two, several Debian users have mentioned using it, so
I'd like to package
Hi!
I've just uploaded netdump package to mentors.debian.net and now am
seeking for a sponsor for this package.
The netdump client sets up the kernel to send crash dumps and/or
console messages as syslog packets to a remote system.
The netdump server listens to the network for crashed kernels to
Hello Geert,
* Geert Stappers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-08 15:08]:
[...]
> > But if the NMU is a new upstream version 1.2, then the correct NMU
> > version is 1.2-0.1. This is in the Debian Developer's Reference:
> >
> > "If it is absolutely necessary for someone other than the usual main-
Frank Küster wrote:
You should try to separate non-debian-specific and debian-specific
parts, IMO.
I have been trying to keep to standard Bourne Shell so it should be ok.
I will try to package it in a normal tar file with (bin, etc, etc)
not exist or something like this. I ended up having to
Hello Geert,
* Geert Stappers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-08 15:08]:
[...]
> > But if the NMU is a new upstream version 1.2, then the correct NMU
> > version is 1.2-0.1. This is in the Debian Developer's Reference:
> >
> > "If it is absolutely necessary for someone other than the usual main-
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:58:26AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:03:52AM -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> > But if the NMU is a new upstream version 1.2, then the correct NMU
> > version is 1.2-0.1. This is in the Debian Developer's Reference:
> >
> > "If it is absolutely
On 2004-06-08 Christoph Wegscheider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 2.) Is there an easy way to untighten the automatically (${shlibs:Depends})
> generated Depends? I mean, maybe a lower version of a lib would also do
> (having testing/unstable user in mind).
[...]
You could specify the dependo
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:03:52AM -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > > If the current version in the archive is 1.1, and you upload an NMU
> > > of 1.2, that NMU should be 1.2-0.1 (so that a maintainer upload of
> > > 1.2-1 supersedes it).
> >
> > It should be 1.1-0.1
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:13:47AM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Hi, I'm interested in adoptiong python-gd but I'm not (yet) a DD.
> I'm started my application process few weeks ago and my first official
> package (phpldapadmin) is already in unstable.
>
> I'm looking for someone interested i
Frank Küster wrote:
You should try to separate non-debian-specific and debian-specific
parts, IMO.
I have been trying to keep to standard Bourne Shell so it should be ok.
I will try to package it in a normal tar file with (bin, etc, etc)
not exist or something like this. I ended up having to put A
On Thu, 20 May 2004, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> I thank everyone who contributed ideas for the script.
Some of those ideas have now been implemented. Add this to sources.list to test:
deb http://funkyware.konflux.at debian/
Now, unless anybody strongly objects, the package will be submitte
Christoph Wegscheider wrote:
I also have some questions:
1.) Is a successfull pbuilder build a guaranty for correct Build-Depends?
As long as you haven't mucked with the settings and installed extra
packages in the pbuilder chroot by default, this is one of the best ways
to be sure, yes.
I just uploaded potracegui_0.5.1-2 to mentors.debian.net hopefully
correcting all outstanding issues, appreciating any further comments.
potracegui (0.5.1-2) unstable; urgency=low
* adjusting the copyright file and the package description.
* fixed Build-Depends.
* Closes: #253205: ITP: potr
Hi, I'm interested in adoptiong python-gd but I'm not (yet) a DD.
I'm started my application process few weeks ago and my first official
package (phpldapadmin) is already in unstable.
I'm looking for someone interested in sponsoring me to adopt python-gd.
I've packaged python-gd adding supports a
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:58:26AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:03:52AM -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> > But if the NMU is a new upstream version 1.2, then the correct NMU
> > version is 1.2-0.1. This is in the Debian Developer's Reference:
> >
> > "If it is absolutely
On 2004-06-08 Christoph Wegscheider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 2.) Is there an easy way to untighten the automatically (${shlibs:Depends})
> generated Depends? I mean, maybe a lower version of a lib would also do
> (having testing/unstable user in mind).
[...]
You could specify the dependo
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:03:52AM -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > > If the current version in the archive is 1.1, and you upload an NMU
> > > of 1.2, that NMU should be 1.2-0.1 (so that a maintainer upload of
> > > 1.2-1 supersedes it).
> >
> > It should be 1.1-0.1
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:13:47AM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Hi, I'm interested in adoptiong python-gd but I'm not (yet) a DD.
> I'm started my application process few weeks ago and my first official
> package (phpldapadmin) is already in unstable.
>
> I'm looking for someone interested i
On Thu, 20 May 2004, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> I thank everyone who contributed ideas for the script.
Some of those ideas have now been implemented. Add this to sources.list to test:
deb http://funkyware.konflux.at debian/
Now, unless anybody strongly objects, the package will be submitte
Christoph Wegscheider wrote:
I also have some questions:
1.) Is a successfull pbuilder build a guaranty for correct Build-Depends?
As long as you haven't mucked with the settings and installed extra
packages in the pbuilder chroot by default, this is one of the best ways
to be sure, yes.
2.) Is
Bengt Thuree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That depends on the complexity of the installation. In most cases,
>> it is
>> highly advisable to have a separate Makefile that does the compilation
>> and installation, and in debian/rules you only call it with appropriate
>> targets and arguments.
> ok
I just uploaded potracegui_0.5.1-2 to mentors.debian.net hopefully
correcting all outstanding issues, appreciating any further comments.
potracegui (0.5.1-2) unstable; urgency=low
* adjusting the copyright file and the package description.
* fixed Build-Depends.
* Closes: #253205: ITP: potr
Hi, I'm interested in adoptiong python-gd but I'm not (yet) a DD.
I'm started my application process few weeks ago and my first official
package (phpldapadmin) is already in unstable.
I'm looking for someone interested in sponsoring me to adopt python-gd.
I've packaged python-gd adding supports a
Bengt Thuree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That depends on the complexity of the installation. In most cases,
>> it is
>> highly advisable to have a separate Makefile that does the compilation
>> and installation, and in debian/rules you only call it with appropriate
>> targets and arguments.
> ok
45 matches
Mail list logo
