I maintain a new package, licenseutils, for witch I had a very bad
response from buildd:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=licenseutils&suite=sid
Seems that different architectures have different symbols. So I'm
looking for a way to address this issue.
As dh_makeshlibs(1) states if I
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Seems that different architectures have different symbols.
To me it doesn't look that simple, since the missing symbols are the
same on many arches. It seems like upstream is basing the
presence/absence of some public functions on what is r
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>> Seems that different architectures have different symbols.
> To me it doesn't look that simple, since the missing symbols are the
> same on many arches. It seems like upstream is basing the
> presence/absence of some pub
On 12/29/2013 04:24 AM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> I maintain a new package, licenseutils, for witch I had a very bad
> response from buildd:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=licenseutils&suite=sid
>
> Seems that different architectures have different symbols. So I'm
> looking for a w
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: wishlist
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "commbug"
* Package name: commbug
Version : 1.0.3-0~experimental0
Upstream Author : Huang Rui
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/commbug/
* License : GN
Hi,
for some of my newly uploaded packages, I got a bug report
'arch-dependent files in "Multi-Arch: same" package' [1]. The files in
question are in /usr/share/doc/.
However, these differences do not come from differences in the
architecture but from different build environments. Specifically, t
Olе Streicher wrote:
> for some of my newly uploaded packages, I got a bug report
> 'arch-dependent files in "Multi-Arch: same" package' [1]. The files in
> question are in /usr/share/doc/.
> However, these differences do not come from differences in the
> architecture but from different build en
Andreas Metzler writes:
> Olе Streicher wrote:
>> My question here is now how strict it is to have identical files in
>> /usr/share/doc even when build in a different environment (basically,
>> both versions are fine here).
>
> Hello,
> It is quite important. If the shared files are not binary id
==> I'm not sure what my (tablet) mailer did with my initial posting, but
you might have got it garbled, hence I apologize and send it again. Eric
Hi,
I would tend to agree with what Paul wrote but IANAL and you should ask on
debian-legal for a more authoritative answer. A few more comments below
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 08:01:13PM +0100, Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
> I guess, it means that having the icons in a jar file isn't OK, having
> them in the file system is OK
Jar files are .zip files. Does this mean that you can't have images in
the same tarball as a GPL'd program in a tarfile?
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Olе Streicher wrote:
> This would be an option, as long as there is not complaint that an
> arch-independent package should be generated identically regardless of
> the architecture it is built on :-)
At some point we want the entire archive to be reproducibly bui
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 02:19:38PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Even considering code in the same jarfile as "linked", I don't think
> you can link an image to code in the same way.
I've seen it before. Takes an image and makes a C file, something like
char my_img={ 0x11, 0x22, ... etc}
Was ev
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "hwinfo"
* Package name: hwinfo
Version : 20.1-1
Upstream Author : Steffen Winterfeldt
* URL : https://github.com/openSUSE/hwinfo
* License : GPL-2
Sectio
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libx86emu"
* Package name: libx86emu
Version : 1.4-1
Upstream Author : Steffen Winterfeldt
* URL : https://github.com/wfeldt/libx86emu
* License : BSD
Se
Your message dated Mon, 30 Dec 2013 04:26:15 +
with message-id
and subject line closing RFS: pumpa/0.8.2-1 [ITP] -- a new pump.io/identi.ca
client
has caused the Debian Bug report #732657,
regarding RFS: pumpa/0.8.2-1 [ITP] -- a new pump.io/identi.ca client
to be marked as done.
This means t
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 02:17:12PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 02:19:38PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Even considering code in the same jarfile as "linked", I don't think
> > you can link an image to code in the same way.
> I've seen it before. Takes an image and make
On Sat, 2013-12-28 at 20:58 +, Thomas Thurman wrote:
> So sorry to have vanished.
No worries.
> I've updated the plover packaging to (attempt to) address your concerns
> raised in http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2013/06/msg00026.html .
> Please could you take a further look when you h
So sorry to have vanished.
I've updated the plover packaging to (attempt to) address your concerns
raised in http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2013/06/msg00026.html .
Please could you take a further look when you have the time and let me know
what you think?
To access further information abo
On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 13:09 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Other issues:
In addition Jakub Wilk provided you some more stuff to look at here:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=710989#15
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally sig
19 matches
Mail list logo
