On 5 September 2012 17:53, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
I wish to make stable-0.6 the new master while avoiding a merge or
revert+merge on master (the difference between them is quite large).
I'd have expected a merge as I think the CLI fixups in 0.6.9 (which
are IIRC the main changes
On 2 September 2012 16:51, Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 03:42:50PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
Hi Peter,
Sorry, my mistake, this should have been Hi Thomas.
Hi Bart,
No problem. Are there any issues with the package split and rename?
Splitting the package
* Alessandro Ghedini al3x...@gmail.com [120906 23:08]:
I had a look at your package and it mostly looks good, altough I have a few
remarks:
Thanks for your time.
debian/control:
* is there any reason for the Priority: extra? If not it would be better to
change it to optional.
No
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 10:25:12AM +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote:
On 2 September 2012 16:51, Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 03:42:50PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
Hi Peter,
Sorry, my mistake, this should have been Hi Thomas.
Hi Bart,
No problem. Are there
On 7 September 2012 16:38, Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 10:25:12AM +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote:
On 2 September 2012 16:51, Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 03:42:50PM +, Bart Martens wrote:
Hi Peter,
Sorry, my mistake, this
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 05:11:00PM +0200, Etienne Millon wrote:
debian/rules:
* as per #641051 there is no out-of-the-box multi-arch support for cmake
in
debhelper, but I have noticed that glyr's CMakeLists.txt uses the
INSTALL_LIB_DIR to set that library installation path.
Hi,
Unfortunately your package ... was rejected because of the following
reason:
You are not uploading to one of those Debian distributions: oldstable stable
unstable experimental stable-backports oldstable-backports
oldstable-backports-sloppy
oldstable-security stable-security
On 2012-09-07 22:32:09 +0300 (+0300), Boris Pek wrote:
[...]
I need to upload updated package with Ubuntu-specific patch. This
package will be uploaded into Ubuntu by avoiding Debian archive.
Wouldn't an Ubuntu PPA be more appropriate for that use case? How
does uploading Ubuntu-specific
I need to upload updated package with Ubuntu-specific patch. This
package will be uploaded into Ubuntu by avoiding Debian archive.
Wouldn't an Ubuntu PPA be more appropriate for that use case?
Add temporary PPA for this? These files will needed during less than a day in
my case.
How does
On 2012-09-07 22:57:09 +0300 (+0300), Boris Pek wrote:
[...]
I usually maintain packages for Debian. But now faced with necessary
to do Ubuntu-specific update. And usual way of exchanging files is
not working.
In the past when I've been in that situation, I just open a bug in
Launchpad against
Could you suggest any free hosting where I can put source package
files and they will be available using dget?
Unfortunately no, I usually just serve them off my home Internet
connection when I need to do that, but I'm also a sysadmin by trade.
I guess you don't have a personal Web site
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 10:57:09PM +0300, Boris Pek wrote:
I need to upload updated package with Ubuntu-specific patch. This
package will be uploaded into Ubuntu by avoiding Debian archive.
Wouldn't an Ubuntu PPA be more appropriate for that use case?
Add temporary PPA for this? These
Add temporary PPA for this? These files will needed during less than a day
in my case.
I assure you no one will mind having one hang around. PPAs are nice to
have around, even if you don't use them.
I have one that I use for stuff like this, it's not like it's a burden
on the system.
I
Hi Eugene,
On 05.09.2012 14:45, Eugene Seliverstov wrote:
I have some questions about versioning scheme.
Package is based on latest 0.9.21.dfsg-4 and includes all of these changes.
But I reseted (maybe incorrectly) a numbering due to use '+dfsg' prefix
instead of '.dfsg'.
1. Is it okay to
On 07/09/12 20:32, Boris Pek wrote:
Hi,
Unfortunately your package ... was rejected because of the following
reason:
You are not uploading to one of those Debian distributions: oldstable stable
unstable experimental stable-backports oldstable-backports
oldstable-backports-sloppy
Arno Toell a...@wavecon.de writes:
Yes, using +dfsg is acceptable. I haven't checked it, but I'm pretty
sure that the +dfsg variant is more common. That said, keep in mind that
using + or . is not only a stylistic question. It also makes a
difference sometimes.
+dfsg is preferred over .dfsg
16 matches
Mail list logo
