Le Tue, May 26, 2009 at 01:53:22PM +0200, Daniel Leidert a écrit :
>
> You can modify the Makefile.in. So you don't need to run the
> autotools chain.
>
> > --- a/io_lib/Makefile.am
> > +++ b/io_lib/Makefile.am
> > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> > -lib_LIBRARIES = libread.a
> > +lib_LIBRARIES = libstaden-read
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Together with Upstream and the Fedora packager, we decided some time ago
> that a
> library in a package I am preparing will be renamed in Debian and Fedora,
> from
> ‘libread’ to ‘libstaden-read’.
>
> In Fedora, this is done by using sed on some ‘.in’ files:
> http://cvs.
Dear all,
Together with Upstream and the Fedora packager, we decided some time ago that a
library in a package I am preparing will be renamed in Debian and Fedora, from
‘libread’ to ‘libstaden-read’.
In Fedora, this is done by using sed on some ‘.in’ files:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpm
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>
> The point I was trying to make is that a libvips-doc which conflicts
> and replaces libvips7.10-doc would force the removal of libvips7.10-doc
> when doing "apt-get dist-upgrade", . . .
I think this may
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > This way, "apt-get upgrade" will install libvips-doc without requiring
> > "apt-get dist-upgrade", and this will be done automatically and
> > without user intervention,
>
> Are you certain of that? My understanding is th
Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>
>> I've read Section 5.9.3 of the developer's reference and understand it
>> clearly. Is that still the best way to go?
>
> Not always, unfortunately. Very often, the upgrade will be smoother if
> you use empty dummy packages w
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
>
>> I've read Section 5.9.3 of the developer's reference and understand it
>> clearly. Is that still the best way to go?
>
> Not always, unfortunately. Very often, the upgrade will be smoother if
> you use emp
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> The recent thread on names of library packages on debian-devel made me
> decide that I made a mistake in naming one of my packages.
> Specifically, the vips7.10 source package creates four binary
> packages: libvips7.10, libvips7.10-dev, libvips7.10-too
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> Renaming the packages now will create a minor nuisance: the small
> number of users of the package will have to learn a new name for the
> package, ftp-masters will have to remove these packages that they just
> approved, and the vips packages will have
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The recent thread on names of library packages on debian-devel made me
> decide that I made a mistake in naming one of my packages.
> Specifically, the vips7.10 source package creates four binary
> packages: libvips7.10, libvips7.10-dev, libvips7.10-too
The recent thread on names of library packages on debian-devel made me
decide that I made a mistake in naming one of my packages.
Specifically, the vips7.10 source package creates four binary
packages: libvips7.10, libvips7.10-dev, libvips7.10-tools, and
libvips7.10-doc. There's no reason for the
11 matches
Mail list logo
