Hi mentors!
Here I am sending this RFC/RFS again.
Having corrected all the bugs/wishlist items which came up here on the list,
I feel Rhinote is finally ready to be uploaded.
Obviously, if someone finds any other problem, I'll be happy to fix it and
learn a little more :)
Below is the info about
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> I am upgrading to the recent upstream one of the extensions I am
> maintaining. Finally I made a proper debian/watch file but now I need to
> decide which way to go on how to keep .orig.tar.gz. I've investigated a
> few packaged extensions and didn't
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:19:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> Looks good to me at this point. I've gone ahead and uploaded it. You
> should shortly get the notification that it's waiting in NEW.
[...]
Got it--thanks! I'll keep an eye on the new queue and see if/when it
gets into sid.
>
On 25-Apr-2006, Ted Percival wrote:
> Paul Wise wrote:
> > * debian/changelog: the version should be 0.0.20051212 or
> > 0.0.0.20051212 or something so that if upstream changes their
> > version scheme, you won't have to use [an] epoch.
>
> Isn't that exactly what the epoch i
Jeremy Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 07:35:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The reference to /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD is not really correct
>> since your software is not Copyright The Regents of the University of
>> California. I'd remove that and just put
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:37:30PM +1000, Andree Leidenfrost wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> My packages with explicit architecture lists don't get built by the
> autobuilders. I have checked the Debian Policy, Developer's Reference
> and New Mainatiner's Guide and believe that the following in the con
Dear mentors,
My packages with explicit architecture lists don't get built by the
autobuilders. I have checked the Debian Policy, Developer's Reference
and New Mainatiner's Guide and believe that the following in the control
file should be valid and work:
Architecture: amd64 i386 ia64
I upload t
Paul Wise wrote:
> * debian/changelog: the version should be 0.0.20051212 or
> 0.0.0.20051212 or something so that if upstream changes their
> version scheme, you won't have to use [an] epoch.
Isn't that exactly what the epoch is for?
-T
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 23:48 +0200, Le_Vert wrote:
> spcaview : package review needed
The convention is RFC: package -- package description
> http://www.le-vert.net/divers/debian-package/spcaview/spcaview_20051212-1.dsc
Best to just specify the dsc/diff so we can go dget -x for a
more thorough
Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The general rule of thumb is that if there is any intention whatsoever
>> that the package be used on a platform other than Debian, the Debian
>> packaging and the upstream source should be separate.
>
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The general rule of thumb is that if there is any intention whatsoever
> that the package be used on a platform other than Debian, the Debian
> packaging and the upstream source should be separate.
Okay, so what do you guys do about upstream source
Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay... to make my intentions clear:
> I've been using debian now since 1999 and don't see myself
> changing distributions at any point in the future. I love debian. The
> first thing I do when I get a blank harddrive is install debian on
sorry, correct version: (I should probably go to sleep...)
$ cd package-version
$ mv debian ../
$ tar zcf ../package_version.orig.tar.gz ./
$ mv ../debian ./
$ debuild
--
-=[ Piotr Ozarowski ]=-
-=[ http://www.ozarowski.pl ]=-
pgpUvD01r4ygH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Tyler MacDonald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 1. Do I still need to make it an ".orig" package, even if it will
> have a zero-byte diff?
Follow these steps:
$ cd package.version
$ mv debian ../
$ tar zcf package_version.orig.tar.gz ./
$ mv ../debian ./
$ debuild
--
-=[ Piotr Ozarowski ]=
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 4. W: libbtt: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink usr/lib/libbtt.so.0.0.0
> > usr/lib/libbtt.so
> > Should I care?
> Is it a public shared library? (Do other packages link to it?) If
> not, you can/should try to move it out of /usr/lib.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 03:01:23PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
>
> I'm working on creating .deb packages for one of my projects, with the
> eventual goal of having it included in the debian distribution.
>
> I've browsed through the policy manual, new maintainers guide, etc, and I've
> successf
Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just include no manpage at all. Don't silence Lintian for it, because man
> pages need to be made eventually. However, will the binaries really change
> that much that it creating man pages would be wasted effort? Just some
> general documentation is alr
Hello Tyler,
On Tue, April 25, 2006 00:01, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> I'm working on creating .deb packages for one of my projects, with the
> eventual goal of having it included in the debian distribution.
Then you've come to the right place for help :)
I'm out of town, so just some general comme
I'm working on creating .deb packages for one of my projects, with the
eventual goal of having it included in the debian distribution.
I've browsed through the policy manual, new maintainers guide, etc, and I've
successfully created a "debian/" directory in my project that allows debuild
to produ
Hello,
Could you check this package before my sponsor upload it ? :
http://www.le-vert.net/divers/debian-package/spcaview/spcaview_20051212-1.dsc
http://www.le-vert.net/divers/debian-package/spcaview/spcaview_20051212-1.diff.gz
http://www.le-vert.net/divers/debian-package/spcaview/spcaview_200512
> >1. There are two possible packaging schemes
> > a. Keep only original .xpi in the .orig.tar.gz, and extract/dpatch it
> >at build time.
> > b. Keep unzipped .xpi in .orig.tar.gz.
> > I was going the b. way but now I think that keeping original .xpi
> > would be better
> I'm no DD, but I woul
"Theppitak Karoonboonyanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I have adopted the orphaned thailatex package in the bug:
> http://bugs.debian.org/357871
>
> And now the brand new package has been dressed up,
> waiting for sponsoring.
I'm willing to look into it and finally sponsor i
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
1. There are two possible packaging schemes
a. Keep only original .xpi in the .orig.tar.gz, and extract/dpatch it
at build time.
b. Keep unzipped .xpi in .orig.tar.gz.
I was going the b. way but now I think that keeping original .xpi
would
Hi All,
I am upgrading to the recent upstream one of the extensions I am
maintaining. Finally I made a proper debian/watch file but now I need to
decide which way to go on how to keep .orig.tar.gz. I've investigated a
few packaged extensions and didn't find an answer to my question: how to
perform
Hi all DD,
I'm looking a sponsor for adopt texi2html [1]!
I have another tree packages in Debian!
libemail-find-perl
libconfig-general-perl
libhtml-fromtext-perl
Package Name: texi2html
Short Description: texi2html is a Perl script that converts Texinfo files to
HTML
Release: 1.76-4
linda &
25 matches
Mail list logo