On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 02:15:14PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:54 PM, gustavo panizzo (gfa) wrote:
>
> > Is there any tool I can use to rebuild all packages which B-D/D on my
> > package? i want to do a local test before bumping it on the archive
>
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 1:54 PM, gustavo panizzo (gfa) wrote:
> Is there any tool I can use to rebuild all packages which B-D/D on my
> package? i want to do a local test before bumping it on the archive
apt install ratt
> Extra points for running the autopkgtests (if any)
You s
Hello
Is there any tool I can use to rebuild all packages which B-D/D on my
package? i want to do a local test before bumping it on the archive
Extra points for running the autopkgtests (if any)
thanks!
PS: pkg is python-pytest-timeout
--
1AE0 322E B8F7 4717 BDEA BF1D 44BB 1BA7 9F6C 6333
Hi again
>If builders can't pick it up, it means that something else in the toolchain is
>blocking
>it.
and now we have the good reason:nodejs is not available anymore on armel,
so you have to file an RM bug
against ftpmasters if you want to see it migrate.
e.g.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
t;how can I ask for a rebuild?
actually the package is BD-uninstallable, so it will be picked up as soon
as the reverse-dependency is installed.
If builders can't pick it up, it means that something else in the toolchain is
blocking
it.
just wait for the line [1]
3.3.1.20161024-1Up
f
r-cran-knitr is blocked due to the missing armel Build-Dependency -
how can I ask for a rebuild?
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=r-cran-knitr
--
http://fam-tille.de
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:24:51PM +0100, Gert Wollny wrote:
> Hello Octavio,
>
> On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 14:01 -0800, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
> > Is it possible to request a rebuild attempt of a package in a
> > particular architecture, from the same source, to check
Hello Octavio,
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 14:01 -0800, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
> Is it possible to request a rebuild attempt of a package in a
> particular architecture, from the same source, to check if now it
> builds?
See: https://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt
"give back"
Hi.
Is it possible to request a rebuild attempt of a package in a particular
architecture, from the same source, to check if now it builds?
Best regards.
--
Octavio.
;
> Is there a recommended way to create/maintain customized versions of
> packages in cases when there's no need to rebuild from source but
> advanced post-install configuration is necessary?
>
> For example, I wan't to have an OpenLDAP that would install directly
> wi
Hello,
Is there a recommended way to create/maintain customized versions of
packages in cases when there's no need to rebuild from source but
advanced post-install configuration is necessary?
For example, I wan't to have an OpenLDAP that would install directly
with mdb backend. To
hi,
Thanks for your mentoring.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
> you do not need to prepare binNMU "patch". A binNMU is built from the
> same source package and thus does not need a patch at all. Just someone
> who triggers a rebuild.
>
> See [1] for
Hi,
letting alone the problem beyond, as I am not qualified to comment on that:
On 28.06.2012 13:13, Satoru KURASHIKI wrote:
> In such case, what do I prepare for NMU patch?
> Or, are there another option to rebuild package on the archive?
you do not need to prepare binNMU "patch&qu
uch case, what do I prepare for NMU patch?
> Or, are there another option to rebuild package on the archive?
File a bug report against the release.debian.org pseudo-package, to
request a binNMU. See [1] for more details.
You'll need to fix FTBFS bug #637721 first though.
Regards,
Vincent
to touch the source package itself.
The developers reference says that, "non-porters needs to prepare changelog
and patch even though when doing binNMU" (7.4.3).
In such case, what do I prepare for NMU patch?
Or, are there another option to rebuild package on the archive?
regards,
-
Le 22/06/12 10:36, Bas van den Dikkenberg a écrit :
> Is there way to force a failed build to retry ?
>
Yes there is:
http://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt
or otherwise
http://www.google.fr/search?q=debian+rebuild+request
Kind regards, Thibaut.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP d
Is there way to force a failed build to retry ?
With kind regards,
Bas van den Dikkenberg
Hi Mr./Mrs. Name,
"With No Name" writes:
> in the changes/upload file I have only those three files, but I need the
>
> package_1.2.3.tar.gz
>
> too. How do I do this?
See the -sa option of dpkg-buildpackage / dpkg-genchanges.
Regards,
Ansgar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 02:17:27PM +0100, With No Name wrote:
> in the changes/upload file I have only those three files, but I need the
>
> package_1.2.3.tar.gz
>
> too. How do I do this?
Add -sa to the build command you use.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hello,
I was searching the Debian website forward and back but I do not more find
the page, where it was written.
I mean, I have the
package_1.2.3-4.dsc
package_1.2.3-4.diff
package_1.2.3.tar.gz
from the last version of a debian package which was removed and now I
rebuild it for e.g. squeeze
org/debian-devel/2011/08/msg00445.html
So I'm thinking to request a rebuild to release team. My doubt: is it a
good approach?
As per <http://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt>, you should ask
, not the release team.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-req
Hi to all the list,
I'm back after a long idle period :)
I'm trying to fix bug 627267 [¹], but I can't reproduce it, all the
tries on a amd64 system are going successfully, So I'm thinking to
request a rebuild to release team. My doubt: is it a good approach?
Thank yo
g using Debconf,
but would I am slightly inconclusive in choosing the default setting.
To ease transition, it would be best to do
Ask a debconf question 'htdig/htdig_initial', with default 'true',
indicating that database rebuild is desirable. Then, at execution
time, a
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 05:15:15PM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> I've built the program against libperl5.10 and saw that it works
> fine, no changes to the program are necessary, nor to the debian
> package. The only thing I need is to request a rebuild of the packages
&g
, no changes to the program are necessary, nor to the debian
package. The only thing I need is to request a rebuild of the packages
from source in the four affected architectures (i386, kfreebsd-amd64,
kfreebsd-i386, m68k), which will pull the latest version of libperl from
unstable, 5.10. How can I
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
>>
>> There's a lot of information hidden beneath the surface, it seems. Is
>> there a place through which I could have discovered this, other than
>> asking on debian-mentors? :-)
>
> An
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 07:40:45PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
> not-for-us
> Certain specific packages are architecture-specific; for instance,
> "lilo", an i386 boot loader, should not be rebuilt on alpha, m68k,
> or s390.
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
>>
>> There's a lot of information hidden beneath the surface, it seems. Is
>> there a place through which I could have discovered this, other than
>> asking on debian-mentors? :-)
>
> An
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the current
>> > icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing. Perhaps someone built it manually.
>> > There are no bugs posted again icu28.
>>
>> In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing w
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the
> > > current icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing.
> >
> > In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing without arm
> > support?
>
> Hmm. In testing and unstable without arm support. How does this
> happen?
> > http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
>
> There's a lot of information hidden beneath the surface, it seems. Is
> there a place through which I could have discovered this, other than
> asking on debian-mentors? :-)
Answering my own question, I see a link to this in bu
> > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the current
> > icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing. Perhaps someone built it manually.
> > There are no bugs posted again icu28.
>
> In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing without arm
> support?
Hmm. In testing and un
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 07:40:45PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
> not-for-us
> Certain specific packages are architecture-specific; for instance,
> "lilo", an i386 boot loader, should not be rebuilt on alpha, m68k,
> or s390.
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the current
>> > icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing. Perhaps someone built it manually.
>> > There are no bugs posted again icu28.
>>
>> In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing w
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the
> > > current icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing.
> >
> > In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing without arm
> > support?
>
> Hmm. In testing and unstable without arm support. How does this
> happen?
> > http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
>
> There's a lot of information hidden beneath the surface, it seems. Is
> there a place through which I could have discovered this, other than
> asking on debian-mentors? :-)
Answering my own question, I see a link to this in bu
> > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the current
> > icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing. Perhaps someone built it manually.
> > There are no bugs posted again icu28.
>
> In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing without arm
> support?
Hmm. In testing and un
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > * On all three packages, the arm build failed because of an
>> >unsatisfiable build dependency that was the result of a timing
>> >problem. These should succeed now as the problem with the
>> >dependent package has been cleared.
> > * On all three packages, the arm build failed because of an
> >unsatisfiable build dependency that was the result of a timing
> >problem. These should succeed now as the problem with the
> >dependent package has been cleared. I emailed
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] to reque
Hi,
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a variant of a commonly asked question, but I'm still not able
> to find a clearly stated answer.
>
> three of my packages:
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces23.html
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces24.html
> http://packages.
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > * On all three packages, the arm build failed because of an
>> >unsatisfiable build dependency that was the result of a timing
>> >problem. These should succeed now as the problem with the
>> >dependent package has been cleared.
This is a variant of a commonly asked question, but I'm still not able
to find a clearly stated answer.
three of my packages:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces23.html
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces24.html
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces25.html
have all not entered testing be
> > * On all three packages, the arm build failed because of an
> >unsatisfiable build dependency that was the result of a timing
> >problem. These should succeed now as the problem with the
> >dependent package has been cleared. I emailed
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] to reque
Hi,
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a variant of a commonly asked question, but I'm still not able
> to find a clearly stated answer.
>
> three of my packages:
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces23.html
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces24.html
> http://packages.
This is a variant of a commonly asked question, but I'm still not able
to find a clearly stated answer.
three of my packages:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces23.html
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces24.html
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces25.html
have all not entered testing be
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-05-30 Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> One of my packages (librmagick-ruby) recently stopped working (details left
>> intentionally vague). I believe this was due to a change in one of the
>> libraries it depends on.
>
>> In any cas
* Mike Williams [Sun, 30 May 2004 20:19:30 +1000]:
> One of my packages (librmagick-ruby) recently stopped working (details left
> intentionally vague). I believe this was due to a change in one of the
> libraries it depends on.
> In any case, rebuilding against an updated sid install got it work
On 2004-05-30 Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of my packages (librmagick-ruby) recently stopped working (details left
> intentionally vague). I believe this was due to a change in one of the
> libraries it depends on.
> In any case, rebuilding against an updated sid install got it
Mike Williams wrote:
One of my packages (librmagick-ruby) recently stopped working (details left
intentionally vague). I believe this was due to a change in one of the
libraries it depends on.
In any case, rebuilding against an updated sid install got it working
again, without any source change
One of my packages (librmagick-ruby) recently stopped working (details left
intentionally vague). I believe this was due to a change in one of the
libraries it depends on.
In any case, rebuilding against an updated sid install got it working
again, without any source changes required. In other w
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-05-30 Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> One of my packages (librmagick-ruby) recently stopped working (details left
>> intentionally vague). I believe this was due to a change in one of the
>> libraries it depends on.
>
>> In any cas
* Mike Williams [Sun, 30 May 2004 20:19:30 +1000]:
> One of my packages (librmagick-ruby) recently stopped working (details left
> intentionally vague). I believe this was due to a change in one of the
> libraries it depends on.
> In any case, rebuilding against an updated sid install got it work
On 2004-05-30 Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of my packages (librmagick-ruby) recently stopped working (details left
> intentionally vague). I believe this was due to a change in one of the
> libraries it depends on.
> In any case, rebuilding against an updated sid install got it
Mike Williams wrote:
One of my packages (librmagick-ruby) recently stopped working (details left
intentionally vague). I believe this was due to a change in one of the
libraries it depends on.
In any case, rebuilding against an updated sid install got it working
again, without any source changes r
One of my packages (librmagick-ruby) recently stopped working (details left
intentionally vague). I believe this was due to a change in one of the
libraries it depends on.
In any case, rebuilding against an updated sid install got it working
again, without any source changes required. In other w
[Cc-ing debian-mentors, since that's were such a nice micro-howto
belongs, I guess.]
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:25:46PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Joost van Baal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have very little experience with chroot-ed builds, but will spend some
> > more time inves
[Cc-ing debian-mentors, since that's were such a nice micro-howto
belongs, I guess.]
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:25:46PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Joost van Baal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have very little experience with chroot-ed builds, but will spend some
> > more time inves
Hi.
Is there any way to trigger a rebuild of packages except the upload of a
new version?
Unfortunately, I didn't specify thight enough build dependencies for
aqmoney so buildds did build against a buggy (wrong shlibs) libopenhbci,
the same applies to libopenhbci-plugin-ddvcard.
Chee
Hi.
Is there any way to trigger a rebuild of packages except the upload of a
new version?
Unfortunately, I didn't specify thight enough build dependencies for
aqmoney so buildds did build against a buggy (wrong shlibs) libopenhbci,
the same applies to libopenhbci-plugin-ddvcard.
Chee
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:05:59PM +0200, Stefan Schwandter wrote:
> Drew Parsons wrote:
>
> > And more to the point [ ;) ], how do I force the autobuilder maintainers to
> > actually upload my package once it has been autobuilt?
>
> > The s390 version of xprint-xprintorg has been built for a who
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:05:59PM +0200, Stefan Schwandter wrote:
> Drew Parsons wrote:
>
> > And more to the point [ ;) ], how do I force the autobuilder maintainers to
> > actually upload my package once it has been autobuilt?
>
> > The s390 version of xprint-xprintorg has been built for a who
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:32:40PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:44:14AM +0200, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
> >
> > How do I force a rebuild on buildd?
>
> And more to the point [ ;) ], how do I force the autobuilder maintainers to
> actually uploa
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 09:23:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Also notice that the s390 is not a released port, so it will not stop
> your package from entering testing, so i would not worry too much about
> this, just wait it out a bit.
>
> Thes arches you have to wait for are :
>
> alpha, arm,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 09:23:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Also notice that the s390 is not a released port, so it will not stop
> > your package from entering testing, so i would not worry too much about
> > this, just
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 09:23:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Also notice that the s390 is not a released port, so it will not stop
> your package from entering testing, so i would not worry too much about
> this, just wait it out a bit.
You might want to take a look at http://www.debian.org/po
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 09:23:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Also notice that the s390 is not a released port, so it will not stop
> your package from entering testing, so i would not worry too much about
> this, just wait it out a bit.
>
> Thes arches you have to wait for are :
>
> alpha, arm,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:32:40PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:44:14AM +0200, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
> >
> > How do I force a rebuild on buildd?
>
> And more to the point [ ;) ], how do I force the autobuilder maintainers to
> actually uploa
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 09:23:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Also notice that the s390 is not a released port, so it will not stop
> > your package from entering testing, so i would not worry too much about
> > this, just
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 09:23:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Also notice that the s390 is not a released port, so it will not stop
> your package from entering testing, so i would not worry too much about
> this, just wait it out a bit.
You might want to take a look at http://www.debian.org/po
Drew Parsons wrote:
> And more to the point [ ;) ], how do I force the autobuilder maintainers to
> actually upload my package once it has been autobuilt?
> The s390 version of xprint-xprintorg has been built for a whole week now[1],
> but it still hasn't been uploaded to the archive[2]. All oth
Drew Parsons wrote:
> And more to the point [ ;) ], how do I force the autobuilder maintainers to
> actually upload my package once it has been autobuilt?
> The s390 version of xprint-xprintorg has been built for a whole week now[1],
> but it still hasn't been uploaded to the archive[2]. All oth
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 03:15:35PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Sven!
>
> You wrote:
>
> > > Sorry, I did not make myself clear: I did not upload a new
> > > package -- I want to trigger a new build attempt for an old
> > > package of mine now that debhelper has been fixed.
> >
> > The autob
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 03:15:35PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Sven!
>
> You wrote:
>
> > > Sorry, I did not make myself clear: I did not upload a new
> > > package -- I want to trigger a new build attempt for an old
> > > package of mine now that debhelper has been fixed.
> >
> > The autob
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:16:43PM +0200, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
> * Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2002-10-17 12:17:56 +0200):
>
> > If you uploaded a new package, the buildds will automagically
> > build it. I could take some time, though.
>
> Sorry, I did not make myself clear: I did not u
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:44:14AM +0200, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
>
> How do I force a rebuild on buildd?
And more to the point [ ;) ], how do I force the autobuilder maintainers to
actually upload my package once it has been autobuilt?
The s390 version of xprint-xprintorg has been built
Hi Sven!
You wrote:
> > Sorry, I did not make myself clear: I did not upload a new
> > package -- I want to trigger a new build attempt for an old
> > package of mine now that debhelper has been fixed.
>
> The autobuilder retry old packages that failed on a regular basis, just
> wait some time f
On Don, 2002-10-17 at 13:40, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:16:43PM +0200, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
> > * Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2002-10-17 12:17:56 +0200):
> >
> > > If you uploaded a new package, the buildds will automagically
> > > build it. I could take some time, th
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:44:14AM +0200, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
>
> How do I force a rebuild on buildd?
And more to the point [ ;) ], how do I force the autobuilder maintainers to
actually upload my package once it has been autobuilt?
The s390 version of xprint-xprintorg has been built
Hi Sven!
You wrote:
> > Sorry, I did not make myself clear: I did not upload a new
> > package -- I want to trigger a new build attempt for an old
> > package of mine now that debhelper has been fixed.
>
> The autobuilder retry old packages that failed on a regular basis, just
> wait some time f
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:16:43PM +0200, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
> * Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2002-10-17 12:17:56 +0200):
>
> > If you uploaded a new package, the buildds will automagically
> > build it. I could take some time, though.
>
> Sorry, I did not make myself clear: I did not u
* Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2002-10-17 12:17:56 +0200):
> If you uploaded a new package, the buildds will automagically
> build it. I could take some time, though.
Sorry, I did not make myself clear: I did not upload a new
package -- I want to trigger a new build attempt for an old
pack
On Don, 2002-10-17 at 13:40, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:16:43PM +0200, Marco Kuhlmann wrote:
> > * Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2002-10-17 12:17:56 +0200):
> >
> > > If you uploaded a new package, the buildds will automagically
> > > build it. I could take some time, th
Hi Marco!
You wrote:
> How do I force a rebuild on buildd? One of my package could not
> be built due to a bug in debhelper which is now solved. Two of
> the architectures have already built the package successfully now
> that the new version is available; can I trigg
Dear mentors:
How do I force a rebuild on buildd? One of my package could not
be built due to a bug in debhelper which is now solved. Two of
the architectures have already built the package successfully now
that the new version is available; can I trigger the other
architectures to try a
* Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2002-10-17 12:17:56 +0200):
> If you uploaded a new package, the buildds will automagically
> build it. I could take some time, though.
Sorry, I did not make myself clear: I did not upload a new
package -- I want to trigger a new build attempt for an old
pack
Hi Marco!
You wrote:
> How do I force a rebuild on buildd? One of my package could not
> be built due to a bug in debhelper which is now solved. Two of
> the architectures have already built the package successfully now
> that the new version is available; can I trigg
Dear mentors:
How do I force a rebuild on buildd? One of my package could not
be built due to a bug in debhelper which is now solved. Two of
the architectures have already built the package successfully now
that the new version is available; can I trigger the other
architectures to try a
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 05:29:27PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Oh. Come on. I think Peter is allowed to do a binary-only NMU of his
> own package, like everybody else :-)
>
> This numbering scheme and its purpose is documented in the Developer's
> Reference. Being the rationale the same (i.e. to
Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > For instance, ``foo_1.3-1'' would be numbered ``foo_1.3-1.0.1''.
> > > No new .diff.gz is uploaded.
> >
> > But then 1.0.1 is a new version, and
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > > The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> > > >
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> > > since I won't be uploading a new diff.gz to propagate a
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > If it's a new binary version, it should have source to go with it.
> > And you can't reupload the binary package without a new version number.
> No, it's a recompile-only of the source package.
A rec
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> > > since I won't be uploading a new diff.gz to propagate
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> > since I won't be uploading a new diff.gz to propagate a new
> > changelog.
>
> If it's a new binary version, it should have source
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> since I won't be uploading a new diff.gz to propagate a new
> changelog.
If it's a new binary version, it should have source to go with it.
And you can't reuploa
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 11:07:39AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:56:09AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > > If not, I presume that I remove the changelog entry after the new
> > > > deb is build (so that it doesn
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 11:07:39AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:56:09AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > If not, I presume that I remove the changelog entry after the new
> > > deb is build (so that it doesn't appear in subsequent uploads
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:56:09AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > The only way that I know is editing the debian/changelog such
> > that dpkg-buildpakage makes the proper version number package and
> > generates a proper changes file.
>
> That's about it. Such rebuil
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:56:09AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> The only way that I know is editing the debian/changelog such
> that dpkg-buildpakage makes the proper version number package and
> generates a proper changes file.
That's about it. Such rebuilds are quite common.
> If not, I
Quick question...
Say I want to rebuild _my_ package xcolmix_1.07-1_i386.deb
against new libraries and reupload it. I know I can renumber it
xcolmix_1.07-1.0.1_i386.deb and not upload new source and .diff.gz files.
What's the method for _generating_ the new deb?
The
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
