On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 08:43:40AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:20:18PM +0200, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote:
I'm not sure what would be best practice to avoid those errors, because
the admin might have to configure the video device first anyway (though
the default
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:04:52PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
Don't try to control the exit status with an environment variable.
Let the initscript return a nonzero status. If you need to ignore
the status (because you have set -e) then append '|| :' to the
line that returns the error status.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:25:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
To do so I need the initscript to make a difference if the package is
called from postinst (don't exist with error status code) or not (exit
with error status code to allow an admin to script something e.g.).
Why this? Why not
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 08:43:40AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:20:18PM +0200, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote:
I'm not sure what would be best practice to avoid those errors, because
the admin might have to configure the video device first anyway (though
the default
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:04:52PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
Don't try to control the exit status with an environment variable.
Let the initscript return a nonzero status. If you need to ignore
the status (because you have set -e) then append '|| :' to the
line that returns the error status.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:25:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
To do so I need the initscript to make a difference if the package is
called from postinst (don't exist with error status code) or not (exit
with error status code to allow an admin to script something e.g.).
Why this? Why not
Okay, the subject is rather weird :), but I just noticed, that a package
I sent an ITP some time ago also has an RFP. What would be the correct
way to handle this?
Retitle the RFP, change owner and then merge it with my ITP?
Or should I just close them both in the state they are now on upload?
I am packaging camsource - a webcam-streaming software.
I've just added an init script that gets installed with dh_installinit.
However on this testing box where I check the packaging in chroot does
not have a webcam attached, so the daemon is missing a device and not
starting correctly:
Unable
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 12:18:07PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:20, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote:
I'm not sure what would be best practice to avoid those errors, because
the admin might have to configure the video device first anyway (though
the default /dev/video0
Okay, the subject is rather weird :), but I just noticed, that a package
I sent an ITP some time ago also has an RFP. What would be the correct
way to handle this?
Retitle the RFP, change owner and then merge it with my ITP?
Or should I just close them both in the state they are now on upload?
I am packaging camsource - a webcam-streaming software.
I've just added an init script that gets installed with dh_installinit.
However on this testing box where I check the packaging in chroot does
not have a webcam attached, so the daemon is missing a device and not
starting correctly:
Unable
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 12:18:07PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:20, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote:
I'm not sure what would be best practice to avoid those errors, because
the admin might have to configure the video device first anyway (though
the default /dev/video0
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:35:07PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Why not wnpp and a new Subject-Tag RFS? RFP and ITP are there anyway?
We could, but (don't want to put these onto wnpp itself, since it's got
enough crap already).
I'm looking for a way to easily see all of the sponsorship
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:24:34PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
No it wouldn't. Once a regular sponsor was found, the bug would be closed
and the sponsor and sponsee would go their merry ways.
I have a sponsor for more than a month now, but the package did not get
uploaded yet (he is checking
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:57:01AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Quick hand check. Of all people willing to sponsor others, who actually
checks that page regularly to find people to sponsor?
In addition there is the forum at mentors.debian.net. Which is not
checked by possible sponsors I guess.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:35:07PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Why not wnpp and a new Subject-Tag RFS? RFP and ITP are there anyway?
We could, but (don't want to put these onto wnpp itself, since it's got
enough crap already).
I'm looking for a way to easily see all of the sponsorship
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:24:34PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
No it wouldn't. Once a regular sponsor was found, the bug would be closed
and the sponsor and sponsee would go their merry ways.
I have a sponsor for more than a month now, but the package did not get
uploaded yet (he is checking
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:08:53AM +, Steve Kemp wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 07:06:12PM -0800, Jess Mahan wrote:
I would like to become a Debian maintainer, but I understand that I
need a mentor first.
Right now you need to have a sponsor to look over your packages then
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:08:53AM +, Steve Kemp wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 07:06:12PM -0800, Jess Mahan wrote:
I would like to become a Debian maintainer, but I understand that I
need a mentor first.
Right now you need to have a sponsor to look over your packages then
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 07:39:56PM +0200, Siward wrote:
I have written a programming tutorial, and want to get it into Debian.
I seem to remember that i should file a request for packaging bug.
I searced for RFP with search facility on www.debian.org
and also with search facility of
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 07:39:56PM +0200, Siward wrote:
I have written a programming tutorial, and want to get it into Debian.
I seem to remember that i should file a request for packaging bug.
I searced for RFP with search facility on www.debian.org
and also with search facility of
Okay third try since mentors.debian.net's i386-tree got lost no one was
able to have a look at the package and decide to sponsor :-]
Camsource grabs images from a video4linux device and makes them available to
various plugins for processing or handling. It features a modularized and
multithreaded
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:06:54PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Thomas -Balu- Walter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Homepage: http://camsource.sourceforge.net/
This looks pretty interesting..
[...]
What's the license?
GPL
I'd like the sponsor to be my advocate too...
Hmmm. I'll try
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 04:20:49PM +0200, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote:
Since there were no comments since my last mail to debian-mentors about
my camsource-package I guess I could ask for a sponsor here :)
You can find the package at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 04:20:49PM +0200, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote:
Since there were no comments since my last mail to debian-mentors about
my camsource-package I guess I could ask for a sponsor here :)
You can find the package at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary
Since there were no comments since my last mail to debian-mentors about
my camsource-package I guess I could ask for a sponsor here :)
You can find the package at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/camsource/
Balu
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Since there were no comments since my last mail to debian-mentors about
my camsource-package I guess I could ask for a sponsor here :)
You can find the package at
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/camsource/
Balu
pgpMwQ66BwZlQ.pgp
Description: PGP
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:01:29AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Please undo that, either generate the devices[1] or don't but don't add
another debconf question just because you can.
Rule of the thumb: *Only* ask if there is no sane default.
The problem is that there is no sane default
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 01:05:49PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[debconf]
I think you are being too cautious. A couple of device-nodes is no big
deal, we aren't talking about tens of kilobytes of wasted diskspace or
big fat dependencies.
Okay, removed it and built 0.7.0-0.balu.3 available at
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:01:29AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Please undo that, either generate the devices[1] or don't but don't add
another debconf question just because you can.
Rule of the thumb: *Only* ask if there is no sane default.
The problem is that there is no sane default
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 01:05:49PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[debconf]
I think you are being too cautious. A couple of device-nodes is no big
deal, we aren't talking about tens of kilobytes of wasted diskspace or
big fat dependencies.
Okay, removed it and built 0.7.0-0.balu.3 available at
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:15:33PM +0200, me wrote:
Can someone please have a look at my just finished .debs?
Version 0.7.0-0.balu.2 gets somewhat close to what I'd call finished and
ready for upload.
However - you might have some comments on the package before I start
searching for a
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:15:33PM +0200, me wrote:
Can someone please have a look at my just finished .debs?
Version 0.7.0-0.balu.2 gets somewhat close to what I'd call finished and
ready for upload.
However - you might have some comments on the package before I start
searching for a
Can someone please have a look at my just finished .debs?
More info on the package can be found at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=211538
The packages can be found at
http://www.b-a-l-u.de/debian/camsource/
They were checked by lintian and linda and were clean
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:45:28PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
You may generate the devices in postinst without asking the user, you
just have to depend on makedev.
I am not sure wether this should be done. I am thinking of devfs-users
(or does makedev handle this?) or users who
Can someone please have a look at my just finished .debs?
More info on the package can be found at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=211538
The packages can be found at
http://www.b-a-l-u.de/debian/camsource/
They were checked by lintian and linda and were clean
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:45:28PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
You may generate the devices in postinst without asking the user, you
just have to depend on makedev.
I am not sure wether this should be done. I am thinking of devfs-users
(or does makedev handle this?) or users who
Okay guys, this is fairly offtopic, but I keep getting _massive_ amounts
of email to my debian-lists address [EMAIL PROTECTED] which makes me
believe, that many subscribers here are infected with W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a resend of a mail I've sent with a wrong subject yesterday, so
it might got sorted in the wrong thread and did not get answers yet:
I'm stuck... As I have written some days before I am trying to package
camsource - a camserv like webcam-streaming software.
As usual ;) I did not listen
This is a resend of a mail I've sent with a wrong subject yesterday, so
it might got sorted in the wrong thread and did not get answers yet:
I'm stuck... As I have written some days before I am trying to package
camsource - a camserv like webcam-streaming software.
As usual ;) I did not listen
Hi there,
I'm stuck... As I have written some days before I am trying to package
camsource - a camserv like webcam-streaming software.
As usual ;) I did not listen to the guidelines regarding single-binary
only first packages, so camsource contains some devel-files and
libraries (filters/plugins
Sorry, forgot to set the right subject while sending...
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 03:15:12PM +0200, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote:
Coming to the problematic part: camserv used to do this just like this,
but newer versions (starting at 1:0.5.0-1) contain everything in one
package again
Hi there,
I'm stuck... As I have written some days before I am trying to package
camsource - a camserv like webcam-streaming software.
As usual ;) I did not listen to the guidelines regarding single-binary
only first packages, so camsource contains some devel-files and
libraries (filters/plugins
Sorry, forgot to set the right subject while sending...
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 03:15:12PM +0200, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote:
Coming to the problematic part: camserv used to do this just like this,
but newer versions (starting at 1:0.5.0-1) contain everything in one
package again
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:19:44PM +0200, Thorsten Sauter wrote:
* Thomas -Balu- Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-27 18:07]:
[lintian warnings]
you _must_ use sid/unstable to build your packages. If the package is
only for yourself, you can safely ignore the lintian warnings above.
I
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:51:09AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
It is a feature, people might have two different secret keys, one used
only for Debian John Doe 'Debian package key' [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
another one for his private mail John Doe 'private'
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
Thats a bug in my
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:51:09AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
It is a feature, people might have two different secret keys, one used
only for Debian John Doe 'Debian package key' [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
another one for his private mail John Doe 'private'
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
Thats a bug in my
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:19:44PM +0200, Thorsten Sauter wrote:
* Thomas -Balu- Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-27 18:07]:
[lintian warnings]
you _must_ use sid/unstable to build your packages. If the package is
only for yourself, you can safely ignore the lintian warnings above.
I
warnings, correct?
Another problem I experienced is that I have to start dpkg-buildpackage
using [EMAIL PROTECTED], because it tries to find a key related to
'Thomas -Balu- Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED]', but gpg stored my key as
'Thomas Walter (Balu) [EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
Is it a bug or a feature that dpkg
warnings, correct?
Another problem I experienced is that I have to start dpkg-buildpackage
using [EMAIL PROTECTED], because it tries to find a key related to
'Thomas -Balu- Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED]', but gpg stored my key as
'Thomas Walter (Balu) [EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
Is it a bug or a feature that dpkg
50 matches
Mail list logo
