On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:35:00AM +0930, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2007 9:43 AM, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 09:35:05AM +0930, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > postinst should use dpkg-statoverride instead of chown
> > Really? I thought this was an administrat
On Nov 9, 2007 9:43 AM, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 09:35:05AM +0930, Paul Wise wrote:
> > postinst should use dpkg-statoverride instead of chown
> Really? I thought this was an administrator's tool, and the postinst
> should do something like
I guess I mea
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 09:35:05AM +0930, Paul Wise wrote:
> postinst should use dpkg-statoverride instead of chown
Really? I thought this was an administrator's tool, and the postinst
should do something like
getent "$u" >/dev/null ||
adduser --system --group --home /var/... --shell /usr/sbin/
ftp-master is down, so here is a review of your diff.gz:
since you already use the Homepage field, you should remove it from
the descriptions
don't forget to send the desktop file upstream (and other relevant stuff)
the Encoding field is obsolete in .desktop files (please use lintian next time)
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mediatomb".
* Package name: mediatomb
Version : 0.10.0-4
Upstream Author : Gena Batyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sergey Bostandzhyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leonhard Wi
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 10:09:59AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Making changes to make the build work is always good, of course.
> > However, when changes are made for the Debian package, this should be
> > done in a way which doesn't hide them. When a user sees a package where
> > the tarball
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:59:44PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:22:06PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:24:40PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > I wouldn't do that. Repackaging is done to make the tarball complient
> > > with our standards, not to
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:24:40PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 09:10:11AM -0200, Tiago Saboga wrote:
> > The background is that I already have to repackage upstream tarball,
> > because they contain compiled jars.
>
> I don't know much about java, but if those are just compi
Package: debhelper
Version: 5.0.42
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
File: /usr/bin/dh_fixperms
User: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Usertag: dh_fixperms
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 04:16:06PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
> >> "Bernd" == Bernd Zei
Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
>> "Bernd" == Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hello,
>
> Bernd> if I understand dh_fixperms manpage correctly it does not
> Bernd> 'fix' the permissions for bin directories anymore. So you
> Bernd> just want to add a chmod 755 somewhere
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:59:44PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Making changes to make the build work is always good, of course.
> However, when changes are made for the Debian package, this should be
> done in a way which doesn't hide them. When a user sees a package where
> the tarball is repackag
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:22:06PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:24:40PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > I don't know much about java, but if those are just compilations of
> > things for which the source is also in the tarball, there is no need to
> > repackage. You can re
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:24:40PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> I don't know much about java, but if those are just compilations of
> things for which the source is also in the tarball, there is no need to
> repackage. You can remove them in the clean target in debian/rules, for
> example, to make s
> "Bernd" == Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hello,
Bernd> if I understand dh_fixperms manpage correctly it does not
Bernd> 'fix' the permissions for bin directories anymore. So you
Bernd> just want to add a chmod 755 somewhere.
However, dh_fixperms seems to fix
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 09:10:11AM -0200, Tiago Saboga wrote:
> The background is that I already have to repackage upstream tarball,
> because they contain compiled jars.
I don't know much about java, but if those are just compilations of
things for which the source is also in the tarball, there i
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 09:10:11AM -0200, Tiago Saboga wrote:
> I am polishing the packages for omegat (#448867) and
> libhtmlparser-java (#448872) and I have a few questions. The
> background is that I already have to repackage upstream tarball,
> because they contain compiled jars.
>
> 1) Should
Hi!
I am polishing the packages for omegat (#448867) and
libhtmlparser-java (#448872) and I have a few questions. The
background is that I already have to repackage upstream tarball,
because they contain compiled jars.
1) Should I convert eol markers (fromdos)? Or at least should I fix
the half a
17 matches
Mail list logo
