Re: Packaging issues (python app)

On 25-Aug-2005, Ram Kumar DANGETI wrote: > I've attahced the source package (apitest-0.2.5+1.tar.gz) and a spec > file(apitest.spec) Please don't. Now there is a copy of those files in every mailbox where this list is delivered. Instead, please put your packages up for inspection on a site where

Package copyright notice (was: Re: [RFS] quaneko: An index tool of TXT, PDF, DOC, HTML and others)

On 24-Aug-2005, Justin Pryzby wrote: > Just to be clear, a proper copyright notice looks like "Copyright > (C) 2004, 2005 Justin Pryzby", possibly omitting the "(C)". Definitely omitting the "(C)"; there's no legal purpose for "parenthesis letter-C parenthesis". If you want a copyright symbol, the

Re: looking for sponsor for tablix & gtablix

Am Mittwoch, 24. August 2005 00:01 schrieb Geert Stappers: > Should I read that as "the package has _not_ included all > dependencies"? well, I didn't apt-get install the package but used dpkg -i. In this case I think you always have to resolve dependencies manually. > > That seems a "the package

Re: RFS: Plash: a shell and restricted environment for running programs with minimum authority

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Seaborn wrote: > > LD_PRELOAD isn't good enough. Plash needs to replace *all* uses of > > system calls that use filenames, including glibc's internal uses of > > those system calls. Back in the day of glibc 2.2.5, you *could* do > > this by overriding

Re: RFS: Updated packages for vrms (fwd)

Rogério Brito wrote: > I tried to send the message attached two times already, but it seems > that it hasn't reached the list. > > Anyway, if anybody could help, I'd be grateful. I've been following that bug and had been expecting some activity to occur on the vrms mailing list since they redirec

Re: [RFS] quaneko: An index tool of TXT, PDF, DOC, HTML and others

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:13:28PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote: > On 8/23/05, Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > LI Daobing ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > I don't know the exactly meaning of your letter. Could you give me an > > > example of 'a proper copyright notice'. I gen

Re: RFS: python-goopy

On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:40:38AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > Another detail... you might extend the description (debian/control) > > > of the python2.(3|4)-goopy binary packages to read something like > > > "This package provides the modules for Python 2.4". > > > > Done that as well. > Yo

RE: man pages and symbolic links

Hi, and thank you for your answer. Le mercredi 24 août 2005 à 12:13 +0200, jano kupec a écrit : > Hi, i think you'll find the anwer here: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s12.1 Sure, I haven't seen what is told about symlinks! However, it is not very clear that several bi

st0ck rumOrs that becOme true and prOfitab|e exacted

laurel Hot Oil Pick Of The Week- ORTE We have uncovered a diamond here, ORTE is on the move for strong continued success. We are recommending it to all of our readers this week. With experts saying oil can reach five dollars per gallon by the end of the year, the oil industry is in strong dem

Re: RFS: python-goopy

On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:48:11PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:40:53PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:51:51PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > It's gone now. However, I haven't included any README.Debian, since > the documentation shown by apt

Re: RFS: python-goopy

On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:40:53PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:51:51PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > > Sorry for going on and on! > > Don't worry. We'll be done complaining about the package soon. ;) I am sure about that! :-) > > What I have done is, I have prepende

Re: install-info problems with DOS encoded files

"W. Borgert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Is this a bug in the install-info program, or should I convert all the >> info files to unix lineendings? > > The latter. Please do it either during build in the package directories, or in the texlive repos

Re: install-info problems with DOS encoded files

Quoting Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Is this a bug in the install-info program, or should I convert all the > info files to unix lineendings? The latter. Cheers, WB (happy texlive user, even Vietnamese works out of the box!) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subje

install-info problems with DOS encoded files

Dear friends! I have the following problem: Upstream ships .info files in DOS encoding. And install-info in my postinst (automatically generated by dh_installinfo) script moans that No `START-INFO-DIR-ENTRY' and no `This file documents'. install-info(/usr/share/info/dvips.info): unable to dete

Re: RFS: python-goopy

Hi, Kumar... On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:51:51PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > Sorry for going on and on! Don't worry. We'll be done complaining about the package soon. ;) > But I just wanted to inform you that I have found a way to make up for > the docs, and want to know whether it is all right

RE: man pages and symbolic links

Hi, i think you'll find the anwer here: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s12.1 i also agree that one man page and several symlinks is better idea jano -Original Message- From: Julien Valroff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:04 PM To: deb

man pages and symbolic links

Hi, I am building a package with several binaries, and would like to know if it is correct to build one unique man page for all the binaries, with symbolic links poiting to the real file? eg.: /usr/share/man/1/binary.1 -> /usr/share/man/1/mainbinary.1.gz Then, 'man binary' would yield to the same