Sven Joachim writes:
> Everybody seems to do the directory → symlink conversion a little
> differently, but what Colin Watson did in the libpipeline-dev package
> seemed most reasonable to me, so I followed his example.
Thanks, I will inspect this solution …
> Arguably this problem is very comm
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I'm looking for a sponsor for my package "logisim".
* Package name: logisim
Version : 2.7.1
Upstream Author : Carl Burch
* URL : http://ozark.hendrix.edu/~burch/logisim/
* License : GPL-2+
Programm
Hi,
This is looking good. Is there any way I can get a signed PGP key from
you to verify this package? At least having the key from a keyserver...
Thanks,
A.
--
We have no friends but the mountains.
- Kurdish saying
pgpxyiJY5YCOU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 672307 wishlist
Bug #672307 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: libkaz/1.21-1 [ITP] please sponsor
Kazlib upload
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal'
> # NEW packages should be wishlist.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me
On 2012-05-10 20:06 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 10-05-12 01:22, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Policy dictates, and ‘dpkg’ obeys, that this change is not respected.
>> The result is that the existing directory remains, and is no longer
>> populated in the new release.
>>
>>
>> The package installs a du
Hi everyone,
I have strange problem with my package eiskaltdcpp-qt.
When I compile this binary file using gcc 4.6 program works fine.
But when I compile it using gcc 4.7 program crashes at launch time.
Full backtrace from gdb shows that segmentation fault is in Qt library [1].
Bug was also confi
Package: sponsorship-requests
Version: RFS: ipset/6.12-1 -- administration tool for kernel IP sets
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ipset"
* Package name: ipset
Version : 6.12-1
Upstream Author : Jozsef Kadlecsik
* URL : h
Hi Ben and mentors,
On 10-05-12 01:22, Ben Finney wrote:
> Policy dictates, and ‘dpkg’ obeys, that this change is not respected.
> The result is that the existing directory remains, and is no longer
> populated in the new release.
>
>
> The package installs a duplicate documentation directory co
Ralf Jung wrote:
> > I took a look at your package; here are a few comments:
> Thanks a lot for your detailed review!
You're welcome!
> > - In debian/copyright, you have a license paragraph called "GPL-2"
> > that states: "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
> > any lat
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Stefan Ott wrote:
> Dear mentors
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Stefan Ott wrote:
>> Dear mentors,
>>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pidgin-privacy-please".
>>
>> * Package name : pidgin-privacy-please
>> Version : 0.7.1-1
>> Upst
Thibaut Paumard writes:
> Have you tried debuild -tc? It ought to call debian/rules clean before
> unapplying the patches. IMHO, it should be the default.
I agree. Since
debuild
[...]
debuild clean
is recommended in the docs [1], I would think it is a bug.
Cheers
Ole
[1] http://www.debian.o
Le 10/05/12 15:18, Olе Streicher a écrit :
> Thibaut Paumard writes:
>> Can you not override clean to be a no-op or at least not trigger
>> autoreconf if the patches have not been applied?
>
> Overriding with no-op doesn't help since then my directory is still
> cluttered with all the trash from
Thibaut Paumard writes:
> Can you not override clean to be a no-op or at least not trigger
> autoreconf if the patches have not been applied?
Overriding with no-op doesn't help since then my directory is still
cluttered with all the trash from the build.
To me, this problem sounds like a bug in
Le 10/05/12 14:47, Olе Streicher a écrit :
> Hi Thibaut,
>
> Thibaut Paumard writes:
>> If you use a patch system, you should use it to do the patching
>
> OK, so I created a small shell script what creates/updates a file
> in debian/patches.
>
> However, now I have another problem: when I run
Hi Thibaut,
Thibaut Paumard writes:
> If you use a patch system, you should use it to do the patching
OK, so I created a small shell script what creates/updates a file
in debian/patches.
However, now I have another problem: when I run
debuild
debuild clean
I get an error since "debuild clean
On Thu, 10 May 2012 13:18:42 +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
> I have the same problem in another package: here, an executable is going
> to be renamed, and therefore also the manpage. Additionally, the manpage
> needs a patch. Since the manpage is renamed, unpatching it after build
> fails.
Not sur
Le 10/05/12 13:41, Thibaut Paumard a écrit :
> That said, I really don't get why dpkg--after-build does not call
> debian/rules clean. It also causes breakages to my packages. I'll
> investigate that someday.
Hi, self and Ole,
Have you seen the -tc option of dpkg-buildpackage?
Regards, Thibaut.
Hi Ole,
Le 10/05/12 13:18, Olе Streicher a écrit :
> Gergely Nagy writes:
>> The patch in debian/patches will be large, possibly complicated and
>> whatnot, but you can explain how it is created in debian/README.source,
>> and live happily ever after.
>>
>> There are cases where a bit of ugliness
Gergely Nagy writes:
> The patch in debian/patches will be large, possibly complicated and
> whatnot, but you can explain how it is created in debian/README.source,
> and live happily ever after.
>
> There are cases where a bit of ugliness is acceptable. This is one such
> case.
I still do not se
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
> Dear Mentors,
>
> For a package [1], I have to patch one file (Makefile.am) twice: once
> from debian/patches, and the other times from debian/rules. The patch in
> debian/patches is needed to bring allow the use of a standard automake
> (upstrea
gregor herrmann writes:
> Maybe try to move the second sed call from _clean to _autoreconf
> directly after the dh_autoreconf invocation?
I've tried this -- this triggers a re-creation of Makefile.in with the
original names, which are then errornously used to build the package.
Cheers
Ole
--
On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:22:46 +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
> 8<-
> override_dh_autoreconf:
> sed s/libast/libstarlink_ast/g -i Makefile.am
> AUTOMAKE="automake --foreign" dh_autoreconf
>
> override_dh_clean:
> sed s/libst
Dear Mentors,
For a package [1], I have to patch one file (Makefile.am) twice: once
from debian/patches, and the other times from debian/rules. The patch in
debian/patches is needed to bring allow the use of a standard automake
(upstream uses a patched version), while the patch done from
debian/ru
23 matches
Mail list logo
