Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
So in Davide's case, foo-bin is going to have a dependency on both the
runtime lib in libfoo0 (from ${shlibs:Depends}) as well as on the
development package libfoo-dev (which the packager includes in the
Depends list manually). You could argue that the dependency on
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 09:56:13AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
On 15-Sep-2005, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
For a package of mine, I need to remove a non-free file from every
upstream tarball. Doing it by hand is certainly suboptimal, and I
might forget to do it.
I thought about using uscan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
[ Hmmm, looks like my mailer ate my message... :-( ]
For a package of mine, I need to remove a non-free file from every
upstream tarball. Doing it by hand is certainly suboptimal, and I
might forget to do it.
I thought about using uscan, with a hand-made script instead of the
common
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:17:16AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi.
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
I'd rather set no recommendation at all, or conflict with old
udev...
The former, by the way, makes perfect sense for something that isn't
absolutely required and will be a complete non
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi.
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
If there's currently no way to set up such things, it might be worth
suggesting to add such a feature to next-generation .deb format. Don't
you think so?
To be honest, no.
If you do
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:22:44AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
Nicolas Boullis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 07:12:16AM +1000, skaller wrote:
Two methods, one is not tenable:
(a) X conflicts with no-X implicitly
(b) When Y depends on no-X, if Y is installed, no-X is
synthesised and installed too if it doesn't exist,
(and conflicting with X to prevent X being
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:03:51AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
On 26-Jul-2005, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
I'd like my em8300 package's dependencies to say something like If you
use udev, I'd recommend you use at least 0.060-1.
[...]
I would translate it to I'd recommend you have either
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 09:46:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Yes, I think I understand what you want.
You want something that is a non-imperative equivalent to
Conflicts: udev ( 0.060-1)
i.e. one that wouldn't force the result, but would recommend it.
That's it.
And
Hi,
I'd like my em8300 package's dependencies to say something like If you
use udev, I'd recommend you use at least 0.060-1. (since specific rules
for the em8300 drivers were added in that release, tahnks to Marco
d'Itri).
Unfortunately, the package system certainly can't guess whether udev
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:21:35PM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
An idea I have been harboring for quite some time, and which bears some
(though not very much) relevance to this thread, is a reverse
dependency. The idea is this:
Package wine has wine.
Package kde has kde.
Package
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:37:07AM -0700, David Everly wrote:
Depends: (package-a,package-1,package-2) | (package-b,package-3)
As far as I remember boolean algebra, (a and b and c) or (d and e) is
equivalent to (a or d) and (a or e) and (b or d) and (b or e) and (c or
d) and (c or e).
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:49:56PM +0200, Alejandro Exojo wrote:
About Outlook: it's propietary software. For me it's not a matter of taste or
technichal reasons (mutt vs. kmail vs. evolution vs. thunderbird...), it's a
matter of commitment with free software.
Hmmm? Do you really
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:49:56PM +0200, Alejandro Exojo wrote:
About Outlook: it's propietary software. For me it's not a matter of taste or
technichal reasons (mutt vs. kmail vs. evolution vs. thunderbird...), it's a
matter of commitment with free software.
Hmmm? Do you really
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:00:47PM +0200, Michael Schiansky wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 07:26:56PM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
please use dpatch to manage paches on upstream source
Since when is the use of dpatch mandatory?
It was never and hopefully will never be.
I
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:00:47PM +0200, Michael Schiansky wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 07:26:56PM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
please use dpatch to manage paches on upstream source
Since when is the use of dpatch mandatory?
It was never and hopefully will never be.
I
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 03:08:28PM +0200, Michael Schiansky wrote:
Remarks:
- diff.gz
please use dpatch to manage paches on upstream source
Since when is the use of dpatch mandatory?
Nicolas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 03:08:28PM +0200, Michael Schiansky wrote:
Remarks:
- diff.gz
please use dpatch to manage paches on upstream source
Since when is the use of dpatch mandatory?
Nicolas
Hi,
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 06:25:41PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
Hello all,
Looking for some advice. Recently a bug was filed on one of my packages
that really had me pulling my hair out - it turned out to be that the
test to make sure debconf input was numeric was failing because I use
Hi,
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 06:25:41PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
Hello all,
Looking for some advice. Recently a bug was filed on one of my packages
that really had me pulling my hair out - it turned out to be that the
test to make sure debconf input was numeric was failing because I use
Hi,
I've spent quite some time recently trying to generate correct packages
for em8300. These are quite complex packages with source for a kernel
module, a library, quite complex maintainer scripts, complex upgrade
from previous versions, etc... I don't feel self-confident enough to
upload
Hi,
I've spent quite some time recently trying to generate correct packages
for em8300. These are quite complex packages with source for a kernel
module, a library, quite complex maintainer scripts, complex upgrade
from previous versions, etc... I don't feel self-confident enough to
upload
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 09:31:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Hello, ...
I am preparing a new version of one of my packages, and lintian claims
that :
$ lintian ocaml-base-3.06-1_3.06-16_i386.deb
E: ocaml-base-3.06-1: duplicate-conffile /etc/ocaml/ld.conf
And effectively, if i open
Hi !
I'd be interrested to sponsor nvrec, but I fear there is a problem:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 03:23:30PM +0200, Marc Leeman wrote:
Package: nvrec
Version: 20020530-3
Priority: extra
Section: x11
Maintainer: Marc Leeman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Depends: libc6 (= 2.2.4-4), liblame0 (=
Hi !
I'd be interrested to sponsor nvrec, but I fear there is a problem:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 03:23:30PM +0200, Marc Leeman wrote:
Package: nvrec
Version: 20020530-3
Priority: extra
Section: x11
Maintainer: Marc Leeman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Depends: libc6 (= 2.2.4-4), liblame0 (= 3.91-0.1)
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:55:29PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
I need debconf and wwwconfig-common for the package I am building. They
need to be correctly installed by the time I run the postinst - I think
that they should be mentioned as pre-depends... Now, as I read, before
including
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:55:29PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
I need debconf and wwwconfig-common for the package I am building. They
need to be correctly installed by the time I run the postinst - I think
that they should be mentioned as pre-depends... Now, as I read, before
including
Hi!
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:10:24PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
if he compiled with debhelper from potato there is a good chance he would be
lying about his standards version. The standards-version should match the
standards you were compiled against.
OK! That's right. I forgot
Hi!
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:10:24PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
if he compiled with debhelper from potato there is a good chance he would be
lying about his standards version. The standards-version should match the
standards you were compiled against.
OK! That's right. I forgot
Hi!
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:01:49PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Hi,
I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
(Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
be
Hi!
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 04:01:49PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Hi,
I have been working on a particular package on my workstation, which runs
Sid. Now, I was some days away from my office, and had only my laptop
(Potato). As my package is not too complicated, I decided to modify it to
be
Hi!
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 11:38:43PM +0100, Martin Eitzenberger wrote:
I want to make a simple debian package (I never made one before)
Only startup-script, docu and depends. But I don't understand how.
Could anyone help me?
First of all, you should read the New Maintainers' Guide (at
Hi!
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 11:38:43PM +0100, Martin Eitzenberger wrote:
I want to make a simple debian package (I never made one before)
Only startup-script, docu and depends. But I don't understand how.
Could anyone help me?
First of all, you should read the New Maintainers' Guide (at
Hi!
I think this thread belongs to -mentors...
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 06:51:01PM +, David H. Askew wrote:
dh_clean
dpkg-source -b jedit-4.0
dpkg-source: building jedit using existing jedit_4.0.orig.tar.gz
dpkg-source: building jedit in jedit_4.0-1.diff.gz
dpkg-source: cannot
Hi!
I think this thread belongs to -mentors...
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 06:51:01PM +, David H. Askew wrote:
dh_clean
dpkg-source -b jedit-4.0
dpkg-source: building jedit using existing jedit_4.0.orig.tar.gz
dpkg-source: building jedit in jedit_4.0-1.diff.gz
dpkg-source: cannot represent
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:01:21PM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:55:56PM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
But the original one untar the source in gphoto_2.0beta3.
It doesn't matter where the original untars. dpkg-source (which
extracts the tar and applies the
Hi !
I'm currently packaging a Mah-Jong game (see ITP #123146), but I have a
problem since upstream has several changelogs...
The first one is in a file called CHANGES, and contains stuff like that:
--
1.2.3 2001-09-06
Hi !
I'm currently packaging a Mah-Jong game (see ITP #123146), but I have a
problem since upstream has several changelogs...
The first one is in a file called CHANGES, and contains stuff like that:
--
1.2.3 2001-09-06
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 08:49:30AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Right, but it seems policy does not allow a contrib source package to
put binaries in both contrib and main. It's a policy issue, not a
technical one: if a package is tainted with a non-free build-dep or
dep for a single
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 08:49:30AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Right, but it seems policy does not allow a contrib source package to
put binaries in both contrib and main. It's a policy issue, not a
technical one: if a package is tainted with a non-free build-dep or
dep for a single
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 09:49:29PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Can I Build-Depends: ccc [alpha], cfal [alpha] and still have the
source package in main?
No, that would violate policy (2.1.2).
Right, thanks for pointing this out (I need to RTFP :-). So the source
would become
Hi !
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 11:21:58PM +0100, Speed Blue wrote:
I look for some debian packages to adopt (I am not Advocated, and I want to
become a debian developper...).
What packages are orphan ???
You shouls have a look at http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ there are
lots
Hi !
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 11:21:58PM +0100, Speed Blue wrote:
I look for some debian packages to adopt (I am not Advocated, and I
want to
become a debian developper...).
What packages are orphan ???
You shouls have a look at http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ there are
lots
Hi !
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 08:15:40AM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
hello all,
when running dh_installman in
/home/p/debian/pdamaze/pdamaze-0.0.20011005/debian
which is where the man page is, i get the error:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] dh_installman ./pdamaze.6
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 05:31:15PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
Is there any kind of documentation that comes with it. If the program
has a --help, you may want to include its output. For the package I
did, I converted the docbook xml to manpage format.
I'm not sure to see your point.
The
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 05:31:15PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
Is there any kind of documentation that comes with it. If the program
has a --help, you may want to include its output. For the package I
did, I converted the docbook xml to manpage format.
I'm not sure to see your point.
The
48 matches
Mail list logo
