Dear mentors,
I have adopted the orphaned swath package:
http://bugs.debian.org/357877
Now I have updated the package with new upstream
version. Sponsoring is needed for the upload.
Here is the package information:
Package: swath
License: GPL
Description:
This is a free word segmentation
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
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
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
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 it
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 would say (a) is
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
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
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
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 already
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
successfully
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.
It's
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 ]=-
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] 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 it
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 sources
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.
Okay, so
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 url.dsc for a
more
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
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
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 control
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 the full
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 is for?
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 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
25 matches
Mail list logo
