Re: wg15-locale architecture depend?
On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Erick Branderhorst wrote: > > Hi, > > is wg15-locale architecture dependend package??? > it is uploaded with i386 in it. > I really should be arch independent, but I haven't had a chance to open a critter complaint yet. Maybe this will suffice? B-) Thanks for noticing... Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4145: ld.so is a.out?!
On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Buddha Buck wrote: > > Package: ldso > > Version: 1.7.14-4 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] /lib>file ld.so* > > ld.so:Linux/i386 demand-paged executable (QMAGIC), stripped > > ld.so.1.7.14: Linux/i386 demand-paged executable (QMAGIC), stripped > > > > Looks like ld.so is still a.out. This is very annoying, because it means > > that the a.out kernel module is most always loaded: > > Of course, ld.so isn't used by ELF programs to load shared libraries, > ld-linux.so.1 is. ls.so is used only by a.out programs, so offhand, I > don't see a problem with it being a.out. In fact, it might not work if > it was ELF (I'm not sure of that lastpart) > In the next release of ldso (1.8.2, I believe) it will be ELF. Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
What parts of "TeX" are architecture independent?
I finally bit the bullet and started work on the TeX packages to make them build on multiple architectures. Well, since I don't much at all about TeX, I'm not sure what's platform specific. I'm especially concerned about endianness. As far as I can gather, the only files that aren't independent are "tfm" files. Is that correct? So, does anyone have any insight? Thanks, Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Anyone want to maintain "modconf"?
I hadn't realized this arch independence stuff would take so much time when I originally agreed to be the maintainer and I still don't see the end of the tunnel, so if anyone wants to let me know. Thanks, Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4386: debian/rex/texbin_3.1415-5.deb is missing manfnt.mf file
On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Milan Hodoscek wrote: > > In texbin_3.1415-5.deb there is a request for manfnt.mf font which is > not there. I linked it to some other file and then dpkg -i works fine. > This was corrected with the latest mfbasfnt (1.0-5). I would think it to be at the mirrors since the upload date was Aug 9th. It worked for me anyway. Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4389: your mail
On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Milan Hodoscek wrote: > > in debian/rex/base dialog package has wrong Package entry (misc) > I will be fixing this when I repackage Dialog with the new standards. Thanks, Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Re: dpkg-buildpackage and joe
On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Dale Scheetz wrote: > dpkg-source -b joe-2.8 > dpkg-source: building joe using existing joe_2.8.orig.tar.gz > dpkg-source: building joe using existing joe_2.8.orig.tar.gz > dpkg-source: error: tarfile `joe_2.8.orig.tar.gz' contains unexpected > object listed by tar as `-rw-r--r-- root/users0 Jan 22 22:45 1995 > joe-2.8.orig/jmacsrc link to joe-2.8.orig/.jmacsrc', expected > `joe-2.8.orig/jmacsrc' > dpkg-source: building joe using existing joe_2.8.orig.tar.gz > If you figure out what's going on here can you let me know? I've run into the same problem while rebuilding for m68kers and was unable to determine the cause. Thanks, Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4513: libpng
Package: libpng1 Version: 0.89c-1 While building on the m68k arch, I received the following from dpkg: dpkg --build /bld/src/new/libpng-0.89c/debian/tmp .. dpkg-deb: building package `libpng1' in `../libpng1_0.89c-1_m68k.deb'. dpkg-deb: maintainer script `postinst' has bad permissions 644 (must be >=0555 and <=0775) __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Re: dpkg-buildpackage and joe
On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> : If you figure out what's going on here can you let me know? I've run
> : into the same problem while rebuilding for m68kers and was unable to
> : determine the cause.
>
> Until Ian is back, you'll might use my diff as appended
> Heiko
Cool! I'll give it a try.
Thanks!
Leland
__ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth!
oo o oo o o |
o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o ooo o |
-- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
> --
> email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> pgp : A1 7D F6 7B 69 73 48 35 E1 DE 21 A7 A8 9A 77 92
> finger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --- /usr/bin/dpkg-source Thu Sep 12 02:20:10 1996
> +++ /home/bmt/heiko/d/Debian/tools/dpkg-sourceThu Sep 19 16:42:57 1996
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> #!/usr/bin/perl
>
> $dpkglibdir= "/usr/lib/dpkg";
> -$version= '1.4.0'; # This line modified by Makefile
> +$version= '1.3.14'; # This line modified by Makefile
>
> $sourcestyle= 'X';
>
> @@ -710,6 +710,7 @@
> "listed by tar as \`$_'");
> $fn= $filesinarchive[$efix++]; $mode= $1;
> if ($mode =~ m/^l/) { $_ =~ s/ -\> .*//; }
> +if (/ link to /) { $_ =~ s/ link to .*//; }
> substr($_,length($_)-length($fn)-1) eq " $fn" ||
> &error("tarfile \`$tarfileread' contains unexpected object".
> " listed by tar as \`$_', expected \`$fn'");
>
>
__ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth!
oo o oo o o |
o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o ooo o |
-- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Why does dpkg-source produce this message...
When attempting to extract the source for eject_1.4-1, I received the following message: dpkg-source: error: diff contains unknown line `\ No newline at end of file' Is there a problem with the package or is there a critter in dpkg-source? Thanks, Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4527: dhcpd does not extract with dpkg-source
Package: dhcpd Version: 0.5.13-1 The following message was received while extracting the source: # dpkg-source -x /sys/downloads/dhcpd_0.5.13-1.dsc dpkg-source: error: tarfile `/sys/downloads/dhcpd_0.5.13.orig.tar.gz' contains object (dhcpd_0.5.13.orig/) not in expected directory (dhcpd-0.5.13.orig) It appears the directory names got munged somehow.
Bug#4513: libpng
On 19 Sep 1996, Michael Alan Dorman wrote: > llucius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Package: libpng1 > > Version: 0.89c-1 > > While building on the m68k arch, I received the following from dpkg: > > dpkg --build /bld/src/new/libpng-0.89c/debian/tmp .. > > dpkg-deb: building package `libpng1' in `../libpng1_0.89c-1_m68k.deb'. > > dpkg-deb: maintainer script `postinst' has bad permissions 644 (must be > > >=0555 and <=0775) > > I don't think this is a libpng bug---I just checked the original > version on my HD, and it is in fact 775. I suspect that the version > of dpkg you're using (maybe all of them) is not correctly reassembling > the source by not making sure the perms are correct on the files that > are patched in. > Hi Mike, I believe if you try to extract the source with dpkg-source and then check the permissions you "should" find them to be incorrect. (Maybe dependent on you umask, but it looks like dpkg-source overrides it.) I think they should be set in "debian/rules". Thanks, Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4528: "io" does not extract with dpkg-source
Package: io Version: 1.09-1 The following message was received while extracting the source: # dpkg-source -x /sys/downloads/io_1.09-1.dsc dpkg-source: error: tarfile `/sys/downloads/io_1.09.orig.tar.gz' contains object (IO-1.09.orig/) not in expected directory (io-1.09.orig) It appears the directory names got munged somehow.
Bug#4529: "gmp" fails to extract when using dpkg-source
Package: gmp Version: 1.3.2-3 While trying to extract gmp, I received the following message from dpkg-source: /bld/src/new # dpkg-source -x /sys/downloads/gmp_1.3.2-3.dsc dpkg-source: extracting gmp in gmp-1.3.2 patch: malformed patch at line 183: od_1.o mpn_lshift.o mpn_rshift.o mpn_rshiftci.o mpn_sqrt.o memory.o mp_set_fns.o _mpz_set_str.o _mpz_get_str.o mpz_realloc.o mp_clz_tab.o alloca.o mp_bases.o dpkg-source: failure: patch gave error exit status 1 It appears that line 182 is too long and is being wrapped. __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4529: gmp" fails to extract when using dpkg-source
On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Dale Scheetz wrote: > Ok, I found the problem. There was a log file (containing the output of > dpkg-buildpackage) that got left behind and incorporated into the diff. > This has been removed and you should now be able to extract things > properly. > I'll try to get the new version to master this evening. In the interumn > you can find it at ftp://dwarf.polaris.net/debian. > Thanks. I'll go get 'er. Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Re: dpkg-buildpackage and joe
On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
>
> > @@ -710,6 +710,7 @@
> > "listed by tar as \`$_'");
> > $fn= $filesinarchive[$efix++]; $mode= $1;
> > if ($mode =~ m/^l/) { $_ =~ s/ -\> .*//; }
> > +if (/ link to /) { $_ =~ s/ link to .*//; }
> > substr($_,length($_)-length($fn)-1) eq " $fn" ||
> > &error("tarfile \`$tarfileread' contains unexpected object".
> > " listed by tar as \`$_', expected \`$fn'");
> >
>
> This fix for /usr/bin/dpkg-source has fixed the problem for me. I can now
> extract from the orig.tar.gz with no errors.
>
> Thanks Heiko!
>
Ditto!!!
Lenad
__ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth!
oo o oo o o |
o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o ooo o |
-- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Re: Bug#4527: dhcpd does not extract with dpkg-source
On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Seems that there is something wrong with dpkg-source. Why would it require > a - instead of a _ for the orig.tar.gz when all the other files for the > package have a _. > I'm not really sure why Ian did it that way. Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Re: Why does dpkg-source produce this message...
On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Guy Maor wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, llucius wrote: > > > When attempting to extract the source for eject_1.4-1, I received the > > following message: > > > > dpkg-source: error: diff contains unknown line `\ No newline at end of file' > > > > Is there a problem with the package or is there a critter in dpkg-source? > > You have a file in the diff without a newline. For example: > Actually, Chris L. imformed me that the new line was missing from the "debian/control" file. I guess dpkg-source got a little confused. Thanks, Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o oo o o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4549: "sac" contains arch dependent compile option
Package: sac Version: 1.3.1-1 1) "Makefile" contains architecture dependent compile option. The following patch corrects this: --- orig/sac-1.3.1/debian/rules Sat Sep 21 11:20:47 1996 +++ sac-1.3.1/debian/rules Sat Sep 21 16:32:55 1996 @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ build: $(checkdir) - $(MAKE) + $(MAKE) CFLAGS='-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer' touch build clean:
Bug#4550: Build of "ae" fails since it's statically linked
Package: ae Version: 962-9 1) "debian/rules" uses "dpkg-shlibdeps" as you normally would, but for "ae" it's not necessary since "ae" is compiled statically. Unfortunately, "dpkg-shlibdeps" does not handle this case. The following patch corrects the problem: diff -ruN orig/ae-962/debian/rules ae-962/debian/rules --- orig/ae-962/debian/rulesSat Sep 21 16:47:42 1996 +++ ae-962/debian/rules Sat Sep 21 16:52:52 1996 @@ -59,7 +59,6 @@ install modeless.ti debian/tmp/usr/doc/ae/modeless.ti gzip -9f debian/tmp/usr/doc/ae/* gzip -9f debian/tmp/usr/man/man1/ae.1 - dpkg-shlibdeps $(package) dpkg-gencontrol chown -R root.root debian/tmp chmod -R g-ws debian/tmp
Re: Bug#4550: Build of "ae" fails since it's statically linked
On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, llucius wrote: > > > Package: ae > > Version: 962-9 > > > > 1) "debian/rules" uses "dpkg-shlibdeps" as you normally would, but > > for "ae" it's not necessary since "ae" is compiled statically. > > Unfortunately, "dpkg-shlibdeps" does not handle this case. > > > This has got to be an architecture thing. I had no problem building the > i386 version. It's linked to libc5 and ncurses3.0 (shared), and > dpkg-shlibdeps reflects this properly in substvars. Now that I have a > chance to think about it, it should probably be linked to the pic versions > of these libraries, since it is supposed to run on the base system. > What should we do about it? Is there some reason your system builds the > package static? > I'm sorry it was the "-N" link option that causes "ae" to be linked statically. Is it really necessary to use the option? Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4554: "dpkg-buildpackage" doesn't pass args to "dpkg-genchanges"
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.4.0
1) "dpkg-buildpackage" is supposed to pass the v, m, and C flags to
"dpkg-genchanges", but it doesn't.
The following patch corrects this:
--- dpkg-buildpackage~ Wed Sep 11 17:20:10 1996
+++ dpkg-buildpackage Sun Sep 22 01:38:03 1996
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@
withecho $rootcommand debian/rules $binarytarget
$signsource "$pv.dsc"
chg=../"$pva.changes"
-withecho dpkg-genchanges $binaryonly $sourcestyle >"$chg"
+withecho dpkg-genchanges $binaryonly $sourcestyle $version $maint $descfile
>"$chg"
fileomitted () {
set +e
Re: Bug#4550: Build of "ae" fails since it's statically linked
On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, llucius wrote: > > > I'm sorry it was the "-N" link option that causes "ae" to be linked > > statically. Is it really necessary to use the option? > > > Well, my man page says: > > >-N specifies readable and writable text and data sec- > tions. If the output format supports Unix style > magic numbers, the output is marked as OMAGIC. > > When you use the `-N' option, the linker does not > page-align the data segment. > > none of which seems to have anything to do with static vs shared > libraries. > It was never explained to me either why it does this, but it seems to be a known (and expected) action. > Do you have libc5-dev and ncurses3.0-dev installed? I believe that the > linker decides whether or not to link static or shared by which kind of > library it finds in it's search path. The dev packages provide the shared > libraries in the proper place to satisfy the linker. > Yes, I have both installed. If I remove the "-N" flag it links dynamically just fine. Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Re: Bug#4550: Build of "ae" fails since it's statically linked
On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > The N option is used to statically link a program. What manpage were you > > looking at? > > The man page is for ld. The gcc man page says ld is used to link. > The gcc man page also says that -static is the proper option for creating > static linked executables. > BTW, what architecture are we talking about? > m68k Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4550: Build of "ae" fails since it's statically linked
Here's something I just found in chapter 4.1 of the "policy" manual: The -N flag should not be used. On a.out systems it may have been useful for some very small binaries, but for ELF it has no good effect. I wish it explained why it shouldn't be used so we could understand it rather than just accepting it... Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4581: "libpaper" doesn't build...
Package: libpaper Version: 1.0.3-1 While attempting to build libpaper, I received the following message: make[2]: Entering directory `/bld/src/new/libpaper-1.0.3/src' gcc -O2 -c paperconf.c -o paperconf.o paperconf.c:9: paper.h: No such file or directory make[2]: *** [paperconf.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/bld/src/new/libpaper-1.0.3/src' make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/bld/src/new/libpaper-1.0.3' make: *** [build] Error 2 It appears that overriding CFLAGS in "debian/rules" is the culprit. Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Re: Potential NIS storm fix
On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, Christoph Lameter wrote: > I > could not test it since the debian source package for the libc does not > build its targets. Anyone know how to get the debian source package to > build? "debian.rules binary" or "debian.rules" both fail without ever > reaching the initgroups.c file > What happens? It builds just fine for me. (m68k arch, but shouldn't matter) Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day)
Bug#4625: "netcdf" contains architecture dependent problems.
Package: netcdf Version: 2.4.3-1 1) "debian/rules" includes "-m486" in compile options. 2) "debian/rules" binary-arch target should build "netcdf" and "netcdf-dev" packages, while the binary-indep target should build the "netcdf-doc" package. Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o oo o o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#4625: netcdf" contains architecture dependent problems.
On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, llucius wrote: > Package: netcdf > Version: 2.4.3-1 > > 1) "debian/rules" includes "-m486" in compile options. > 2) "debian/rules" binary-arch target should build "netcdf" and > "netcdf-dev" packages, while the binary-indep target should build the > "netcdf-doc" package. > 3) "src/fortran/netcdf.inc" seems to be missing which prevents the build of the package. Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#4626: "csh" does not contain required targets.
Package: csh Version: 5.26-6 1) "debian/rules" does not contain the "binary-arch" and "binary-indep" targets which prevents the use of: dpkg-buildpackage -B -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#4627: "gawk" clean target prevents build
Package: gawk Version: 3.0.0-4 1) "debian/rules" clean target does not ignore errors when doing the "make distclean" which causes the build to fail since there's nothing to clean (not even a Makefile). -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#4629: "alias" is arch dependent
Package: alias Version: 2.1-2 1) "debian/rules" should build package in "binary-arch" target rather than "binary-indep" since this is a arch dependent package. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#4630: "lclint-doc" should be arch independent
Package: lclint Version: 2.1b-1 1) "lclint-doc" is built as architecture dependent when it's not. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#4631: "mailpgp" doesn't extract and should be arch independent
Package: mailpgp Version: 1.0-1 1) Source doesn't extract due to an invalid ".dsc" file and the ".diff.gz" patches reference a directory called "mailpgp-1.0-1" rather than the expected "mailpgp-1.0". 2) Since the package doesn't contain any architecture dependent files, it should be made generic (_all.deb). -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#4632: "saytime" won't extract with dpkg-source
Package: saytime Version: 1.0-1 1) "saytime" will not extract with dpkg-source due to a directory of "saytime-1.0-0" in the ".orig.tar.gz" archive and because the ".diff.gz" attempts to patch a directory called "saytime-1.0-1" when it should "saytime-1.0". Also, the ".dsc" file is invalid. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#4633: "io" package should be built under "binary-arch" target
Package: io Version: 1.12-1 1) Since the package is architecture dependent, it should be built under the "binary-arch" target rathar than the "binary-indep" one. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#4634: "mpage" doesn't build when using "dpkg-buildpackage -B"
Package: mpage Versoin: 2.4-1 1) The work being done in the "binary-indep" target should be moved to the "binary-arch" target since the is an architecture dependent package. (Unless, the intent was to build an "mpage_2.4-1_i386.deb" and an "mpage-doc_2.4-1_all.deb" package?) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting messages should have unique style
On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Christian Schwarz wrote: > > Hi folks! > > I just discovered that the start up messages of Debian don't have a unique > style. Some say > starting daemon xxx ... > (lower case `s' and dots `...') while others say > Starting network daemons: xxx > (upper case `S', colon, no dots) etc. > > It would be nice if we had a "style guide" so that the different > packages could all use the same style. What do you think? > Cool, I'm not the only one this bothered. Let's change it. Can we? Please, please! B-) Leland __ Y_ a_ m_ b_ o_ | The leanest, meanest, fightinest sweet tater on Earth! oo o oo o o | o o o | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o ooo o | -- -- -- -- -- -- | http://www.millcomm.com/~llucius (maybe one day) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#4639: "mhonarc" has invalid ".orig.tar.gz" file
Package: mhonarc Version: 1.2.3-2 1) When extracting "mhonarc", dpkg-source produced the following message: dpkg-source: error: tarfile `/sys/downloads/mhonarc_1.2.3.orig.tar.gz' contains object (mhonarc.orig/) not in expected directory (mhonarc-1.2.3.orig) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#4646: "dwww" will not build
Package: dwww Version: 1.0-1 1) While attempting to build "dwww" I received the following messages: rm -f /home/httpd-data/dwww ln -s debian/tmp/var/lib/dwww /home/httpd-data/dwww ln: cannot create symbolic link `/home/httpd-data/dwww' to `debian/tmp/var/lib/dwww': No such file or directory I'm not exactly sure what is expected here, so I can't offer a solution, but I can say that I don't have a '/home' directory (if that helps). -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
