te-standards-version 3.9.0
>> (current is 3.9.4)
>
>
> (this really depends on lintian version you are using, don't blindly trust
> it!)
>> Independently of what Lintian says, how can I detect Standards-Version
>> used in any Debian-like OS?
>
>
> https:/
Hello,
>W: ntfsundelete-tree source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.0
>(current is 3.9.4)
(this really depends on lintian version you are using, don't blindly trust it!)
>Independently of what Lintian says, how can I detect Standards-Version
>used in any Debian-like
When checking files with Lintian, it shows:
W: ntfsundelete-tree source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.0
(current is 3.9.4)
Independently of what Lintian says, how can I detect Standards-Version
used in any Debian-like OS?
Thanks.
--
__
I'm using this express-made address because
Hi,
I'm trying to fix the following lintian problems:
W: libpam-ssh-agent-auth source: ancient-standards-version 3.8.0 (current is
3.9.4)
but googling on source: ancient-standards-version didn't give me much helpful
answer.
How should I fix the problem?
Detailed help appreciated.
Thanks
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:55:31 -0700, Tong Sun wrote:
I'm trying to fix the following lintian problems:
W: libpam-ssh-agent-auth source: ancient-standards-version 3.8.0 (current
is 3.9.4)
but googling on source: ancient-standards-version didn't give me much
helpful answer.
Running
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 02:55:31PM -0700, Tong Sun wrote:
I'm trying to fix the following lintian problems:
W: libpam-ssh-agent-auth source: ancient-standards-version 3.8.0 (current
is 3.9.4)
but googling on source: ancient-standards-version didn't give me much
helpful answer.
Do you
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Tong Sun wrote:
but googling on source: ancient-standards-version didn't give me much
helpful answer.
The first result is the lintian info for this warning:
http://lintian.debian.org/tags/ancient-standards-version.html
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:39:22AM +0200, Olivier wrote:
Hi all,
lintian complains:
out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.0
N:
N: The source package refers to a 'Standards-Version' that is starting to
N: get out of date, compared to current Policy. You can safely ignore
N
Hello Olivier,
* Olivier [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-04 00:49]:
lintian complains:
out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.0
N:
N: The source package refers to a 'Standards-Version' that is starting to
N: get out of date, compared to current Policy. You can safely ignore
N: this warning
Hi all,
lintian complains:
out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.0
N:
N: The source package refers to a 'Standards-Version' that is starting to
N: get out of date, compared to current Policy. You can safely ignore
N: this warning, but please consider updating the package to current
N
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:39:22AM +0200, Olivier wrote:
lintian complains:
out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.0
N:
N: The source package refers to a 'Standards-Version' that is starting to
N: get out of date, compared to current Policy. You can safely ignore
N: this warning
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:39:22AM +0200, Olivier wrote:
Hi all,
lintian complains:
out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.0
N:
N: The source package refers to a 'Standards-Version' that is starting to
N: get out of date, compared to current Policy. You can safely ignore
N
Hello Olivier,
* Olivier [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-04 00:49]:
lintian complains:
out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.0
N:
N: The source package refers to a 'Standards-Version' that is starting to
N: get out of date, compared to current Policy. You can safely ignore
N: this warning
Hi all,
lintian complains:
out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.0
N:
N: The source package refers to a 'Standards-Version' that is starting to
N: get out of date, compared to current Policy. You can safely ignore
N: this warning, but please consider updating the package to current
N
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:39:22AM +0200, Olivier wrote:
lintian complains:
out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.0
N:
N: The source package refers to a 'Standards-Version' that is starting to
N: get out of date, compared to current Policy. You can safely ignore
N: this warning
Hi!
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:33:30 +
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2003-12-12 19:10:31 + Florian Zaehringer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you taking that over too?
I would like to! But I couldn't get in touch with the contakt at
emelfm.sf.net :(
I would suggest forking
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:01:57 +0100
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:10:47PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:35:16 +0100
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:19:38PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
:D I know that, but since the debian-hack I couldn't find a server with
any packages... But perhaps I misspelled somthing because apt-get finds
packages... Packages @ http://debian.org was / is(?) unavailable.
Hi!
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:33:30 +
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2003-12-12 19:10:31 + Florian Zaehringer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you taking that over too?
I would like to! But I couldn't get in touch with the contakt at
emelfm.sf.net :(
I would suggest forking
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:01:57 +0100
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:10:47PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:35:16 +0100
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:19:38PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
:D I know that, but since the debian-hack I couldn't find a server with
any packages... But perhaps I misspelled somthing because apt-get finds
packages... Packages @ http://debian.org was / is(?) unavailable.
On 2003-12-12 19:10:31 + Florian Zaehringer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you taking that over too?
I would like to! But I couldn't get in touch with the contakt at
emelfm.sf.net :(
I would suggest forking and leaving sourceforge. If you get the new
location listed in directories etc, then
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:10:47PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:35:16 +0100
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
So I wonder how I can do that? Is there some ChangeLog for the
Debian
On 2003-12-12 19:10:31 + Florian Zaehringer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you taking that over too?
I would like to! But I couldn't get in touch with the contakt at
emelfm.sf.net :(
I would suggest forking and leaving sourceforge. If you get the new
location listed in directories etc,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:10:47PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:35:16 +0100
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
So I wonder how I can do that? Is there some ChangeLog for the
Debian
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:35:16 +0100
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
So I wonder how I can do that? Is there some ChangeLog for the
Debian Policy? Does somebody know where I can find the right docs?
Or better:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:42:22 +
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2003-12-11 22:00:45 + Florian Zaehringer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am planing to adopt my first package (emelfm, orphaned). So I
checked what
needs to be done to equip myself for this task.
Hasn't upstream
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:30:57 -0200
Leo \Costela\ Antunes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Qui, 2003-12-11 at 20:00, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
Hi folks!
Hi
Hi again!
Read:
/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz
(package debian-policy)
Thanks (also to everybody else),
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:42:22 +
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2003-12-11 22:00:45 + Florian Zaehringer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am planing to adopt my first package (emelfm, orphaned). So I
checked what
needs to be done to equip myself for this task.
Hasn't upstream
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:35:16 +0100
Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
So I wonder how I can do that? Is there some ChangeLog for the
Debian Policy? Does somebody know where I can find the right docs?
Or better:
Hi folks!
I am planing to adopt my first package (emelfm, orphaned). So I checked what needs to
be done to equip myself for this task.
There seems to be one current problems with that package:
The ToDo says the Standards-Version is too old 3.5.2. Should be 3.6.1.
So I wonder how I can do
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
I am planing to adopt my first package (emelfm, orphaned). So I checked what needs
to be done to equip myself for this task.
There seems to be one current problems with that package:
The ToDo says the Standards-Version
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
So I wonder how I can do that? Is there some ChangeLog for the Debian Policy?
Does somebody know where I can find the right docs? Or better: Does somebody perhaps
know what needs to be done for a simple gtk-program to be moved
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 05:31:51PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
I am planing to adopt my first package (emelfm, orphaned). So I checked
what needs to be done to equip myself for this task.
There seems to be one current
On Qui, 2003-12-11 at 20:00, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
Hi folks!
Hi
So I wonder how I can do that? Is there some ChangeLog for the Debian Policy?
Does somebody know where I can find the right docs? Or better: Does somebody perhaps
know what needs to be done for a simple gtk-program to be
On 2003-12-11 22:00:45 + Florian Zaehringer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am planing to adopt my first package (emelfm, orphaned). So I
checked what
needs to be done to equip myself for this task.
Hasn't upstream gone away? Are you taking that over too?
You probably should retitle bug 158150
Hi folks!
I am planing to adopt my first package (emelfm, orphaned). So I checked what
needs to be done to equip myself for this task.
There seems to be one current problems with that package:
The ToDo says the Standards-Version is too old 3.5.2. Should be 3.6.1.
So I wonder how I can do
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 05:31:51PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
I am planing to adopt my first package (emelfm, orphaned). So I checked
what needs to be done to equip myself for this task.
There seems to be one current
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
I am planing to adopt my first package (emelfm, orphaned). So I checked what
needs to be done to equip myself for this task.
There seems to be one current problems with that package:
The ToDo says the Standards-Version
On Qui, 2003-12-11 at 20:00, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
Hi folks!
Hi
So I wonder how I can do that? Is there some ChangeLog for the Debian Policy?
Does somebody know where I can find the right docs? Or better: Does somebody
perhaps know what needs to be done for a simple gtk-program to be
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Florian Zaehringer wrote:
So I wonder how I can do that? Is there some ChangeLog for the Debian Policy?
Does somebody know where I can find the right docs? Or better: Does somebody
perhaps know what needs to be done for a simple gtk-program to be moved
On 2003-12-11 22:00:45 + Florian Zaehringer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am planing to adopt my first package (emelfm, orphaned). So I
checked what
needs to be done to equip myself for this task.
Hasn't upstream gone away? Are you taking that over too?
You probably should retitle bug
I demand that Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho may or may not have written...
On 20030321T182926+0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
There are no _spelling_ errors there.
(Sorry, no time to give any useful comments.)
I
On 20030323T154831+, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho may or may not have written...
Demand? An odd choice of words.
On 20030321T182926+0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
There
Hi.
Darren Salt wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
There are no _spelling_ errors there.
While there are no words mispelled, the *name* of the license (or licence) is.
Just because my name is spelled as Tomas with or without various accents
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 08:16:18PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20030323T154831+, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho may or may not have written...
Demand? An odd choice of words.
We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of
I demand that Thomas Viehmann may or may not have written...
Darren Salt wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
There are no _spelling_ errors there.
While there are no words mispelled,
What? There's one, right there :-)
the *name* of
It was 2003-03-23 21:56 when Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Thomas Viehmann may or may not have written...
Darren Salt wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
There are no _spelling_ errors there.
While there are no words mispelled,
I demand that Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho may or may not have written...
On 20030321T182926+0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
There are no _spelling_ errors there.
(Sorry, no time to give any useful comments.)
I
On 20030323T154831+, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho may or may not have written...
Demand? An odd choice of words.
On 20030321T182926+0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
There
Hi.
Darren Salt wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
There are no _spelling_ errors there.
While there are no words mispelled, the *name* of the license (or licence) is.
Just because my name is spelled as Tomas with or without various accents
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 08:16:18PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20030323T154831+, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho may or may not have written...
Demand? An odd choice of words.
We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of
I demand that Thomas Viehmann may or may not have written...
Darren Salt wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
There are no _spelling_ errors there.
While there are no words mispelled,
What? There's one, right there :-)
the *name* of
It was 2003-03-23 21:56 when Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Thomas Viehmann may or may not have written...
Darren Salt wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
There are no _spelling_ errors there.
While there are no words mispelled,
On 20030321T182926+0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
(Sorry, no time to give any useful comments.)
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin
On 20030321T182926+0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
License : GNU Public Licence
You *could* of course spell that correctly...
(Sorry, no time to give any useful comments.)
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Taiteellisen ohjelmoinnin
I'm not Debian developer but I maintain few packages outside.
Main package is rox (ROX-Filer). Some time ago new version (3.5.9) of
Debian policy came out and version 3.5.6 is marked as 'out of date'.
After checking upgrading-checklist.txt I don't know clearly if I can
bump it or not - can
I'm not Debian developer but I maintain few packages outside.
Main package is rox (ROX-Filer). Some time ago new version (3.5.9) of
Debian policy came out and version 3.5.6 is marked as 'out of date'.
After checking upgrading-checklist.txt I don't know clearly if I can
bump it or not - can
On 16-Feb-2001 Drew Parsons wrote:
I've been setting the Standards-Version of my packages to 3.5.0.0, but
lintian (v 1.20.6) complains:
W: gworldclock source: newer-standards-version 3.5.0.0
Indeed, /usr/share/lintian/checks/standards-version doesn't contain any
references to 3.5
On 16-Feb-2001 Drew Parsons wrote:
I've been setting the Standards-Version of my packages to 3.5.0.0, but
lintian (v 1.20.6) complains:
W: gworldclock source: newer-standards-version 3.5.0.0
Indeed, /usr/share/lintian/checks/standards-version doesn't contain any
references to 3.5
Is there any simple way to decide if a package is eligible for
Standards-Version upgrading, without checking every detail of the Policy?
Is a Lintian check enough?
[Cc to me, please.]
--
Rafael Laboissiere, Debian developer
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 04:10:23PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
Is there any simple way to decide if a package is eligible for
Standards-Version upgrading, without checking every detail of the Policy?
Is a Lintian check enough?
/usr/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.text.gz seems
I am preparing to upload the binary and source packages of
dict-web1913_1.4a-1_all.deb. I have lintian 0.9.3 and debian-policy
2.5.0.0 installed, which are the versions included in slink.
The debian/control file in my package includes the line:
Standards-Version: 2.5.0.0
I am preparing to upload the binary and source packages of
dict-web1913_1.4a-1_all.deb. I have lintian 0.9.3 and debian-policy
2.5.0.0 installed, which are the versions included in slink.
The debian/control file in my package includes the line:
Standards-Version: 2.5.0.0
I
64 matches
Mail list logo
