On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 10:18:57AM +0200, Arvind Autar wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 07:42, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all.
> > >
> > > I have simple question which I could not find in the debian policy, maybe
> > > som
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 10:18:57AM +0200, Arvind Autar wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 07:42, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all.
> > >
> > > I have simple question which I could not find in the debian policy, maybe
> > > som
On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 19:45, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Certainly there are things which could be done to help. I didn't say that
> the problems were insoluble, but they do exist, and you haven't even begun
> to consider them all (many different pieces of infrastructure are affected).
Ok, I admit I
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 01:18:11PM +0300, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> I'm inclined to believe that there are some things that could be done
> about this if someone wanted to. Diffs for the package list has been
> proposed, and it doesn't take many minutes of thinking to see that it's
> actually quit
On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 19:45, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Certainly there are things which could be done to help. I didn't say that
> the problems were insoluble, but they do exist, and you haven't even begun
> to consider them all (many different pieces of infrastructure are affected).
Ok, I admit I
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 01:18:11PM +0300, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> I'm inclined to believe that there are some things that could be done
> about this if someone wanted to. Diffs for the package list has been
> proposed, and it doesn't take many minutes of thinking to see that it's
> actually quit
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 18:38, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The problem with the package list is simply that it is too large. This is a
> problem for low-bandwidth users and users with small amounts of memory, for
> example.
>
> It also makes package management UIs harder to navigate, produces additiona
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 18:38, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The problem with the package list is simply that it is too large. This is a
> problem for low-bandwidth users and users with small amounts of memory, for
> example.
>
> It also makes package management UIs harder to navigate, produces additiona
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 07:42, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
>
> > Hello all.
> >
> > I have simple question which I could not find in the debian policy, maybe
> > someone could point me out to that section or the right documentation? Or a
>
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 07:42, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
>
> > Hello all.
> >
> > I have simple question which I could not find in the debian policy, maybe
> > someone could point me out to that section or the right documentation? Or a
>
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 11:29:54AM +0300, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> Of course, with the current version of dpkg, your point is very good and
> entirely valid.
>
> Thinking ahead, wouldn't it be a good idea to fix dpkg and the package
> list to support a larger number of packages?
The problem wit
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 08:18:55AM -0400, Erik Bourget wrote:
> Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
>
> Thanks! (to you and everyone who pitched in). d-m is really friendly.
Because Fabian wrote:
> This is perhaps the most difficult thing to understand about Debian
> packaging.
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 11:29:54AM +0300, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> Of course, with the current version of dpkg, your point is very good and
> entirely valid.
>
> Thinking ahead, wouldn't it be a good idea to fix dpkg and the package
> list to support a larger number of packages?
The problem wit
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 08:18:55AM -0400, Erik Bourget wrote:
> Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
>
> Thanks! (to you and everyone who pitched in). d-m is really friendly.
Because Fabian wrote:
> This is perhaps the most difficult thing to understand about Debian
> packaging.
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 11:49, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > package
> > * Contains all the files not in the other packages.
> > * Depends on -backgrounds, -icons, and -examples (or only those
> > required, you may want to leave out -examples from the
> > dependency list).
>
* Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040405 12:10]:
> I don't think you need a meta package. I would do this to allow
> flexibility and save space:
>
> package
> * Contains all the files not in the other packages.
> * Depends on -backgrounds, -icons, and -examples (or only those
>
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 08:45, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> This alone is not sufficient reason for producing four packages instead of
> one. This wastes resources in many places (the Debian package list, the
> dpkg database, etc.). You must consider whether the benefit is worth the
> cost.
Of course,
On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 20:16, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> Ok, that seems to be all clear to me, what about the rules file? How do I
> separate packages, the example that Andreas Metzler told me to check out,
> doesn't clear things entirely. Is this the way we should learn it, by
> examples? So I move fi
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 11:49, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > package
> > * Contains all the files not in the other packages.
> > * Depends on -backgrounds, -icons, and -examples (or only those
> > required, you may want to leave out -examples from the
> > dependency list).
>
* Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040405 12:10]:
> I don't think you need a meta package. I would do this to allow
> flexibility and save space:
>
> package
> * Contains all the files not in the other packages.
> * Depends on -backgrounds, -icons, and -examples (or only those
>
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 08:45, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> This alone is not sufficient reason for producing four packages instead of
> one. This wastes resources in many places (the Debian package list, the
> dpkg database, etc.). You must consider whether the benefit is worth the
> cost.
Of course,
On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 20:16, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> Ok, that seems to be all clear to me, what about the rules file? How do I
> separate packages, the example that Andreas Metzler told me to check out,
> doesn't clear things entirely. Is this the way we should learn it, by
> examples? So I move fi
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 12:57:55PM +, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> >Why? How big are the components? Would somebdy e.g install package-name
> >without package-icons or the other way round?
>
> It was a example. The person might only want the backgrounds or only the
> icons.
This alone is not suffic
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I have simple question which I could not find in the debian policy, maybe
> someone could point me out to that section or the right documentation? Or a
> explanation would be nice. I'm debianizing a package that I wou
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 12:57:55PM +, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> >Why? How big are the components? Would somebdy e.g install package-name
> >without package-icons or the other way round?
>
> It was a example. The person might only want the backgrounds or only the
> icons.
This alone is not suffic
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I have simple question which I could not find in the debian policy, maybe
> someone could point me out to that section or the right documentation? Or a
> explanation would be nice. I'm debianizing a package that I wou
On Monday 05 April 2004 14:31, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, WHAT'SYOURNAME wrote:
> > I'm debianizing a package that I would like to split up, like:
> > package-backgrounds
> > package-icons
> > package-examples
>
> Why? How big are the components? Would somebd
On Monday 05 April 2004 14:31, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, WHAT'SYOURNAME wrote:
> > I'm debianizing a package that I would like to split up, like:
> > package-backgrounds
> > package-icons
> > package-examples
>
> Why? How big are the components? Would somebd
I'm sorry I forgot to give a example , the structure of the packge looks
like this:
dir/icon
dir/backgrounds
dir/examples
They all have a Makefile ofcourse in each directory.
Joe
_
Hotmail en Messenger on the move
http://www.m
Hi,
Ok, that seems to be all clear to me, what about the rules file? How do I
separate packages, the example that Andreas Metzler told me to check out,
doesn't clear things entirely. Is this the way we should learn it, by
examples? So I move files into a directory then create a deb out of each
I'm sorry I forgot to give a example , the structure of the packge looks
like this:
dir/icon
dir/backgrounds
dir/examples
They all have a Makefile ofcourse in each directory.
Joe
_
Hotmail en Messenger on the move
http://www.msn.n
Hi,
Ok, that seems to be all clear to me, what about the rules file? How do I
separate packages, the example that Andreas Metzler told me to check out,
doesn't clear things entirely. Is this the way we should learn it, by
examples? So I move files into a directory then create a deb out of each
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 06:11:57PM +0300, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 14:55, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> > What does the ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends} mean? I can't find the
> > meaning of those in the debian policy either? Why not just put depends of
> > the splited package in
On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 14:55, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> What does the ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends} mean? I can't find the
> meaning of those in the debian policy either? Why not just put depends of
> the splited package in the depends line instead of this?
You can manually enter the dependencies
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 06:11:57PM +0300, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 14:55, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> > What does the ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends} mean? I can't find the
> > meaning of those in the debian policy either? Why not just put depends of
> > the splited package in
On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 14:55, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> What does the ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends} mean? I can't find the
> meaning of those in the debian policy either? Why not just put depends of
> the splited package in the depends line instead of this?
You can manually enter the dependencies
From: Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Separating packages.
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:31:43 +0200
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, n.v.t n.v.t
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> I have simple question which I could not find in the debian policy, maybe
> someone could point me out to that section or the right documentation? Or a
> explanation would be nice. I'm debianizing a package that I would like to
> spl
From: Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "n.v.t n.v.t" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Separating packages.
Date: 05 Apr 2004 13:05:45 +0300
On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 12:24, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> package-backgrounds
> pack
From: Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Separating packages.
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:31:43 +0200
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> I have simple quest
On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 09:24:10AM +, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> I have simple question which I could not find in the debian policy, maybe
> someone could point me out to that section or the right documentation? Or a
> explanation would be nice. I'm debianizing a package that I would like to
> spl
From: Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "n.v.t n.v.t" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Separating packages.
Date: 05 Apr 2004 13:05:45 +0300
On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 12:24, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> package-backgrounds
> package-icons
>
On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 12:24, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> package-backgrounds
> package-icons
> package-examples
> package-name (which contains all of the above) Should I do this as a
> meta-package? How do I create a meta-package?
I don't think you need a meta package. I would do this to allow
flexibili
Hello all.
I have simple question which I could not find in the debian policy, maybe
someone could point me out to that section or the right documentation? Or a
explanation would be nice. I'm debianizing a package that I would like to
split up in several parts, the package has a 'backgrounds'
On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 12:24, n.v.t n.v.t wrote:
> package-backgrounds
> package-icons
> package-examples
> package-name (which contains all of the above) Should I do this as a
> meta-package? How do I create a meta-package?
I don't think you need a meta package. I would do this to allow
flexibili
Hello all.
I have simple question which I could not find in the debian policy, maybe
someone could point me out to that section or the right documentation? Or a
explanation would be nice. I'm debianizing a package that I would like to
split up in several parts, the package has a 'backgrounds' d
46 matches
Mail list logo
