-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I have previously posted some Requests for Sponsors for robotour,[0]
animal,[1] and dbacl,[2] as well as a Request for Testing on
gyach-improved.[3] Unfortunately, there were no takes for either the
RFSes or the RFT, so I am again calling
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 18:59 +0100, Christoph Haas wrote:
To get working dpatches I recommend using the 'dpatch-edit-patch'
command.
Great tool!
But tell me:
I had a look at the man page, but I did not see how to go on or edit an
already existing dpatch.
For example, I made my dpatch:
$
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:01 +0100, Rakotomandimby Mihamina wrote:
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 18:59 +0100, Christoph Haas wrote:
To get working dpatches I recommend using the 'dpatch-edit-patch'
command.
Great tool!
But tell me:
I had a look at the man page, but I did not see how to go on or
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 09:35:02AM -0600, John Lightsey wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 12:01 +0100, Rakotomandimby Mihamina wrote:
If it's a simple typo in one line you can also edit the patch file
by hand.
... but if it involves insertion or deletion of lines, of patch or of
context, then don't
Are you still interested in sponsoring this?
http://debian.dev.sourceguru.net/rar/
Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
Hi Martin,
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 12:19 +, Martin Meredith wrote:
The package I've just uploaded to mentors.debian.net, [...]
Two minor problems for the first look. Please
On Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:01 AM, Rakotomandimby Mihamina
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 18:59 +0100, Christoph Haas wrote:
To get working dpatches I recommend using the 'dpatch-edit-patch'
command.
[...]
I had a look at the man page, but I did not see how to go on or
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 16:38 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Then when compile, I see that I made a typo.
I dont wana re-edit the whole code I modified.
How should I do?
The man page is quite clear, imho.
So just run dpatch-edit-patch foo again.
Well... May be should I consider reading
Daniel Knabl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:55:55 +0100 schrieb Daniel Knabl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
as i use this piece of software already on my own host, i would like
to provide it to any other users.
Now it seems that most of the work is finished. [0]
No, the package is in a
Hi all
I'd like to have this package in Debian. Later it will be used by Wammu
[1].
Here is information about python-bluetooth:
* Package name: python-bluetooth
ITP : 349705 [2]
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Albert Huang [EMAIL PROTECTED], Calvin On [EMAIL
I have a situation with a Debian package xdialog:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xdialog.html
The upstream author, Thierry Godefroy [EMAIL PROTECTED], insists on keeping
the debian changes inside the upstream tarball, orig.tar.gz. This complicates
the development process. First of all, when
Stan Vasilyev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a situation with a Debian package xdialog:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xdialog.html
The upstream author, Thierry Godefroy [EMAIL PROTECTED], insists on
keeping the debian changes inside the upstream tarball, orig.tar.gz.
This complicates
Incidentally, while I've used dpatch in the past and it does work, after
some personal experience and playing around with both, I've become
convinced that quilt really is a better solution. It's a bit more
intuitive to work with, it has more interesting functionality, and the
patches are a little
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:23:34PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Yeah, I agree with your general argument, but I can also see where he's
coming from. He's applying the RPM model where this is how people
normally handle RPMs of software that Red Hat itself isn't maintaining.
He probably doesn't
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 13:23, Russ Allbery wrote:
What I would do if I were you would be to make the changes you need to
make to the upstream debian directory to have the package work the way
that it should and send the diffs back to upstream as a courtesy, but not
wait for a new upstream
Stan Vasilyev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 13:23, Russ Allbery wrote:
What I would do if I were you would be to make the changes you need to
make to the upstream debian directory to have the package work the way
that it should and send the diffs back to upstream as a
Am Dienstag, den 24.01.2006, 13:14 -0800 schrieb Stan Vasilyev:
I have a situation with a Debian package xdialog:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xdialog.html
The upstream author, Thierry Godefroy [EMAIL PROTECTED], insists on keeping
the debian changes inside the upstream tarball,
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:23 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
What I would do if I were you would be to make the changes you need to
make to the upstream debian directory to have the package work the way
that it should and send the diffs back to upstream as a courtesy, but
not wait for a new upstream
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 13:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Maybe you should also
tell him, that not every user getting the upstream sources may be happy
with your packaging files (e.g. because of your decision of
(build-)dependencies and configure options, different available library
versions
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 13:52, Russ Allbery wrote:
But I end up repackaging the upstream source anyway. The .orig.tar.gz
is not the same file that Thierry puts on his website.
Why? Do you have to remove some files for DFSG-compliance?
Sorry, what I meant was my orig.tar.gz ends up
Why not just work with upstream as you seem to be doing - and when the
packagings done - download it ... and upload as a debian native package?
Surely if upstream keep a debian/ directory in the tarball then it would
automatically be assumed as a debian native package?
Get the pre-release, make
Stan Vasilyev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 13:52, Russ Allbery wrote:
Why? Do you have to remove some files for DFSG-compliance?
Sorry, what I meant was my orig.tar.gz ends up being the pre-release
version, not the official version released on the website.
This work
Martin Meredith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not just work with upstream as you seem to be doing - and when the
packagings done - download it ... and upload as a debian native package?
Surely if upstream keep a debian/ directory in the tarball then it would
automatically be assumed as a
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 16:34 +, Martin Meredith wrote:
Are you still interested in sponsoring this?
Yes, I am just a bit overloaded.
But why do you need libstdc++5-3.3-dev for building rar?
You wrote that otherwise the libstdc++5 dependency would not come in
as the binary dependency. The
23 matches
Mail list logo
