Hi Steve,
I really hate circular depency and I'm not sure it's the better way. In
fact, audacious is broken in testing for ages and forcing a build of mcs
on mipsel would fix all that crap...
Adeodato Simó a écrit :
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:39:20 -0700]:
Steve Langasek <[EMAI
#include
* Daniel Jacobowitz [Mon, Jul 02 2007, 01:17:33PM]:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:58:02AM -0400, José Miguel Parrella Romero wrote:
> > The maintainers of the xmms package in Debian are proposing the removal
> > of the aforementioned package. Please read on.
>
> When last I looked (some t
The celebration so far is limited primarily to Finland so I hereby officially
claim the first 10 Year Debian Social Contract Pancake Party in Texas (tm).
Anyone who loves Free Software as much as they love Pancakes please feel free
to drop by Brainfood and celebrate the 10th anniversary of the S
On Monday 02 July 2007 05:29:46 pm Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> imho xmms2 is not a real replacement for xmms, as this client-server
> model is too complicated for the normal user, and I find it pretty
> annoying. If I'd be in the need of any kind of server, I'd use a proper
> streaming server.
> The las
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 05:22:31PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 09:40:29AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > I think that is just wrong. sbuild should not need to know anything
> > about dpkg-buildpackage's internals and there is no need for change
> > here. The currently
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:23:38PM +0100, Paul Cager wrote:
> I'm packaging a couple of Java libraries where the source files do not
> have any license declarations. This is being fixed in upstream's svn
> repository.
>
> I still want to package upstream's latest *release* rather than the head
> o
Le Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 04:41:17PM +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit :
>
> Renaming a binary is a diversion from upstream, which we
> want to minimize, in almost all cases. So, it seems that the
> best approach is to contain the "damage" to the emboss
> package.
Hi,
In summary, here is what I will do.
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:39:20 -0700]:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Um. Which version of audacious was this? libaudacious5 isn't in
> > testing at all, and the stable (=testing) version of audacious works
> > fine for me with libaudacious4 which it depends on.
>
> When last I looked (some time ago), none of the different XMMS
> successors were ready for prime time. Are bmpx, audacious, and xmms2
> all usable now?
imho xmms2 is not a real replacement for xmms, as this client-server
model is too complicated for the normal user, and I find it pretty
annoyi
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Um. Which version of audacious was this? libaudacious5 isn't in
> testing at all, and the stable (=testing) version of audacious works
> fine for me with libaudacious4 which it depends on.
(Also filing this as a bug report.)
windlord:/root# aptitude
I'm packaging a couple of Java libraries where the source files do not
have any license declarations. This is being fixed in upstream's svn
repository.
I still want to package upstream's latest *release* rather than the head
of svn, so is it OK just to explain the situation in
README.Debian-source
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libwpg [1]
Version : 0.1.0 (not released yet)
Upstream Author : Fridrich Strba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://libwpg.sf.net
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C++
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 08:27:23PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Could you elaborate on this missing dependency? I'm using audacious in
> >stable for some time with no problems, but I don't know if the dependency
> >is
> >satisfied by accident on my d
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libsvg
Version : 0.1.4
Upstream Author : Carl Worth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://cairographics.org/snapshots/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C
Description
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
Could you elaborate on this missing dependency? I'm using audacious in
stable for some time with no problems, but I don't know if the dependency is
satisfied by accident on my desktop system.
I installed audacious and started it. I tried to add a pla
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Stefan Fritsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libapache2-mod-line-edit
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://apache.webthing.com/mod_line_edit/
* License : GPL 2 or later
Prog
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Can someone tell me, why ftp.debian.org is lacking behind?
Apparently it's out of disk :(
(250G for the current archive, 44GB for archived suites, 11G for an old
packages.d.o, and the remaining 15G or so looks like it's used in .~
2007/7/2, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
When last I looked (some time ago), none of the different XMMS
successors were ready for prime time. Are bmpx, audacious, and xmms2
all usable now?
Hi list,
I just tried to install bmpx but got this dependency problem:
[QUOTE]
The following pac
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 07:33:15PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >When last I looked (some time ago), none of the different XMMS
> >successors were ready for prime time. Are bmpx, audacious, and xmms2
> >all usable now?
> I just tried audacious from
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
When last I looked (some time ago), none of the different XMMS
successors were ready for prime time. Are bmpx, audacious, and xmms2
all usable now?
I just tried audacious from testing which was not able to even load
a single sound file at my side.
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:58:02AM -0400, José Miguel Parrella Romero wrote:
> The maintainers of the xmms package in Debian are proposing the removal
> of the aforementioned package. Please read on.
When last I looked (some time ago), none of the different XMMS
successors were ready for prime tim
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Jon Dowland wrote:
I suggest it is also a good idea to try and convince the
EMBOSS upstream to try and avoid using binary names that
are already in use in the wild.
Well, to be more precise it is better to try to convince
them to not use such generic names. It might be to
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This check would fail many packages that can still be built twice in a
>> row (any package that runs autotools during the build process without
>> doing a complicated dance to preserve the upstream-shipp
Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
> We should have a look at all xmms-plugins but I'm pretty sure more then
> 90% are already part of audacious distribution.
Do you volunteer to prepare a list?
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I
On Monday 2 July 2007 17:58, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 02 July 2007 17:45, Bruno Costacurta wrote:
> > uupdate -u ../secpanel-0.5.2.tar
> > New Release will be 0.5.2-1.
> > uupdate: new version 0.5.2-1 <= current version 0.41+0.4.2-3; aborting!
>
> Looks like someone made a typo in a previous up
I (audacious maintainer) have some stuff to add about xmms plugins.
Most of them have been merged into audacious and I worked with
xmms-crossfade maintainer to build an audacious flavour of this plugins.
We should have a look at all xmms-plugins but I'm pretty sure more then
90% are already pa
The maintainers of the xmms package in Debian are proposing the removal
of the aforementioned package. Please read on.
1. Rationale
* Upstream has deprecated development and support for the current
version of XMMS.
* Several parts of the application are broken and no longer of Debian
quality.
2.
On Monday 02 July 2007 17:45, Bruno Costacurta wrote:
> uupdate -u ../secpanel-0.5.2.tar
> New Release will be 0.5.2-1.
> uupdate: new version 0.5.2-1 <= current version 0.41+0.4.2-3; aborting!
Looks like someone made a typo in a previous upload. 0.41 should probably
have been 0.4.1 (just guessin
Hello,
how is the version order between source package and upstream checked ?
I'm trying to uupdate package secpanel and got following error :
uupdate -u ../secpanel-0.5.2.tar
New Release will be 0.5.2-1.
uupdate: new version 0.5.2-1 <= current version 0.41+0.4.2-3; aborting!
I'm in 0.41+0.4.2-3
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 03:16:11PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> I think more packages, and the wiki itself, could benefit
> if this procedure could become a bit more standardised.
Can someone upload an example of a wikipage, exported as
docbook and post-processed? I'm interested to see e.g. what
h
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:56:44AM +0900, Charles Plessy
wrote:
> The reason I ask is that in the past, even before EMBOSS
> was packaged, some people accepted to rename their binary
> so that the one of EMBOSS was left unchanged (many
> thanks).
So this has happened before and could happen in the
On 7/2/07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
buildd.net lists emials for many buildds.
Thanks!
--
Sergei Golovan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Sergei Golovan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/2/07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So if you see something being "uploaded" for a while then something
>> went wrong. e.g. an upload error. The buildd admin has to upload the
>> package again or return it for a rebuild.
>
>
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gerard Lledó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> My understanding of debian is far from being complete, but in order to
>> be built for a second time a clean is performed before (at least, using
>> debuild). So directory should look like a fresh $ apt-get so
Hello,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The seconds part requires that tools like sbuild and pbuilder know
beforehand if build or build-arch will be used.
For packages that do not implement build-arch, it is acceptable to call
the build target with only B-D installed, because that is the way the
On 7/2/07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So if you see something being "uploaded" for a while then something
went wrong. e.g. an upload error. The buildd admin has to upload the
package again or return it for a rebuild.
OK. I understand this. And how to ask buildd admin to upl
Pierre THIERRY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scribit Ian Jackson dies 29/06/2007 hora 14:28:
>> I think it's a bug that we try to do upgrades from release A to B
>> using A's packaging tools.
>
> In most case, IME, it worked. In the cases where we know it won't,
> couldn't the packaging tools be n
"Sergei Golovan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi!
>
> Could someone explain me (or point to a manual) what 'Uploaded' means
> in http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?packages=erlang ?
>
> The package was initially uploaded for amd64 architecture. It was
> built for i386 and stays in 'upload
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:30:55AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> I would like to gather up some momentum for a policy change. Namely
>> that the build-arch/indep targets in debian/rules become required
>> instead of being optional.
>
>> The reas
Hi,
Can someone tell me, why ftp.debian.org is lacking behind? There have
not been any updates since a few weeks (AFAIK). All updates to Sid are
delivered via mirrors, but not via ftp.debian.org. This also seem to
affect packages.debian.org lacking behind reality. Simply try `apt-cache
policy' for
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
>> ---
>> Somehow make dpkg-buildpackage -B make use of the build-arch target
>> if present. Either by detecting it automatically or by something like
>> #229357.
>> ---
>
> The entire issue circle
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Steffen Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: exonerate
Version : 1.4.0
Upstream Author : Guy Slater
* URL : http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~guy/exonerate/
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : generic t
Hi,
Andreas Metzler wrote:
---
Somehow make dpkg-buildpackage -B make use of the build-arch target
if present. Either by detecting it automatically or by something like
#229357.
---
The entire issue circles around not being able to reliably detect
whether the target i
e2xbegqsdyt21hfc wrote:
> I believe that the Debian project can further help
> its users by setting web pages with as much details on
> its servers as possible.
Uh?
> In particular, I refer to the contents of the
> configuration files of the software used by its
> servers, and their version.
44 matches
Mail list logo
