Quoting Neil Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> add me to the list...
>
> Is this something best done on the debian-i18n list or continue here?
debian-i18n seems more appropriate. For instance, Eddy is subscribed
there while he is not here (I pointed him to your mail, though).
signature.asc
Des
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:40:44 -0600
Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unless your favorite language's soap bindings are horrid, SOAP should
> > be fairly simple and trivial.[1] None of the examples in
> > http://wiki.debian.org/DebbugsSoapInterface are "very complex", which
> > covers
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Raphael Geissert wrote:
The debian/watch file of your package on the unstable distribution fails to
report upstream's version.
Uscan's message follows:
uscan warning: In /tmp/wordnet_watchBHUkns,
no matching hrefs for watch line
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/(.*)/Word
Hi
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:10:18 +0100
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 08:42 +0900, Michal Čihař a écrit :
> > Hi all
> >
> > how can I find what must be installed (or what I have to put in
> > dependencies) to have Gdk with SVG support?
>
> It is
Hi,
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>>
>> I find SOAP very complex for some queries which could be easily served in
>> a format like XML-RPC.
>
> Huh?
>
> Unless your favorite language's soap bindings are horrid, SOAP should
> be fairly simple and trivial.[1]
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 11:16:53PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:46:52PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > > > The size of the test suite is completely irrelevant.
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 05/11/07 at 16:19 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
> There isn't really any kind of "official" acceptation in Debian. By
> asking on -devel@, you basically did everything you could, and if people
> complain, you can always say "see, I asked on -devel@, nobody
> complaine
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The most common change is simply to retrieve the cross-building
> metadata from dpkg-architecture in debian/rules:
> http://wiki.debian.org/EmdebianGuide
> DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE=$(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
> DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE=$(shell dpk
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sebastien Delafond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: jruby1.1
Version : 1.1.0~beta1
Author : The JRuby Team
* URL : http://jruby.codehaus.org/
* License : tri license CPL/GPL/LGPL
Programming Lang: Ruby, Java
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:54:29 +0100
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:36:45PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > All I want is that packages omit the test suite when cross compiling.
> > If that is done by detecting the cross compiler, that's OK because the
> > cross
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:52:37 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 07:23:39PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > Shouldn't packages be using these --build and --host arguments already
> > > even if not cross-building ?
>
> > No. There is no need to specify --buil
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:19:52AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> So there should be a way to disable them if the tests can't work in the
> current build environment.
Don't get me wrong - I think the basic idea is a sensible one, it's just
the making it mandatory bit.
--
"You grabbed my hand and
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:36:45PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> All I want is that packages omit the test suite when cross compiling.
> If that is done by detecting the cross compiler, that's OK because the
> cross compiling environment sets -nocheck anyway.
To clarify, the option used to be `noc
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:46:52PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > The size of the test suite is completely irrelevant. Executing a single
> > > compiled binary will cause any cross build t
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:48:55PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>> If you run a test you usually *want* to have it fail on build time if
>> the test did not go trough. Otherwise running tests is useless - or do
>> you check all build logs with every upload?
>
> In the partic
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:48:55PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> If you run a test you usually *want* to have it fail on build time if
> the test did not go trough. Otherwise running tests is useless - or do
> you check all build logs with every upload?
In the particular case I'm thinking of the
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:51:33 +0100
Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:32:20PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > OK - as long as the one option always has the same meaning. A package
> > that builds libfoo-doc needs to drop the -doc content AND the
> > manpages, ch
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:03:54 +0100
Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:08:03PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > What about:
> >
> > "Packages that run a test suite during the default build must support
> > omitting the tests either upon detecting cross-compiling
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:07:54PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Hadn't this been fixed quite some time ago ? Or wasn't it something with
> --target ? Because I've been using --build and --host for a long time
> with no problem.
The autoconf docs say(*):
`--host=HOST-TYPE'
[...] Specifying
* Gabor Gombas [Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:51:33 +0100]:
> I wonder if this is the wrong approach. You want to add extra complexity
> to _every_ package for the benefit of only a small user base. Instead,
> why not patch "dpkg-deb -b" in Emdebian to interpret -nodoc as "leave
> out everything under /usr/
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:08:03PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> What about:
>
> "Packages that run a test suite during the default build must support
> omitting the tests either upon detecting cross-compiling using
> dpkg-architecture or when -nocheck is specified in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS."
If a pa
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:32:20PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> OK - as long as the one option always has the same meaning. A package
> that builds libfoo-doc needs to drop the -doc content AND the
> manpages, changelog, README, AUTHORS etc., from all packages and not
> just the "docs". I realise
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 03:13:58PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:07:54PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > There is no need to specify --host when not cross-compiling, and
> > > specifying
> > > it will result in autoconf believing that the compiler should be invoked
> >
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
>> The size of the test suite is completely irrelevant. Executing a single
>> compiled binary will cause any cross build to break, even if it is a
>> 1kb no-op.
>
> Attempting to execute a binary not supported by
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:37:56 -0500
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And things shouldn't be "must" in policy unless they're intended to be RC
> > bugs. I don't see how this would ever make sense to be a "must".
> Why?
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:36:31 +
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > The size of the test suite is completely irrelevant. Executing a single
> > compiled binary will cause any cross build to break, even if it is a
> > 1kb n
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> The size of the test suite is completely irrelevant. Executing a single
> compiled binary will cause any cross build to break, even if it is a
> 1kb no-op.
Attempting to execute a binary not supported by the host will obviously
fail
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:08:40 +0100
Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2007 at 20:54:29 +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:37:56 -0500
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > And things shouldn't be "must" in policy unless they're inten
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:07:54PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > There is no need to specify --host when not cross-compiling, and specifying
> > it will result in autoconf believing that the compiler should be invoked as
> > a cross-compiler. Sometimes this has strange side effects as well.
> Had
On Tue, Nov 6, 2007 at 20:54:29 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:37:56 -0500
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And things shouldn't be "must" in policy unless they're intended to be RC
> > bugs. I don't see how this would ever make sense to be a "must".
>
> W
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:37:56 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And things shouldn't be "must" in policy unless they're intended to be RC
> bugs. I don't see how this would ever make sense to be a "must".
Why? Any test suite that runs compiled binaries must be completely
disabled f
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:15:03 -0500
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > In this context, I believe "package documentation" should mean:
> > "All files in the package that are installed beneath /usr/share/doc
> > which are not mandated by Policy."
> >
> > Therefore, copyr
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:25:54 -0500
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > I propose to file bugs against packages that use inconsistent
> > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS or which do not support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS that would
> > actually benefit Emdebian.
> I wonder if I should spend so
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 02:52:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 07:23:39PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:35:41 +0100
> > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > > > The mo
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:07:42 -0500
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
> > which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
> > imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION *must* c
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 07:23:39PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:35:41 +0100
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > The most common change is simply to retrieve the cross-building
> > > metadata from
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:34:36PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> Neil Williams, 2007-11-06 16:08:11 + :
> > Actually, Guillem has already filed the bug: 416450 [PROPOSAL] New
> > option in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to avoid running test-suites
> > What needs to happen for that to be mandatory in Lenny?
Neil Williams wrote:
> I propose to file bugs against packages that use inconsistent
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS or which do not support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS that would
> actually benefit Emdebian.
>
> As with the other mass bug filing from this set, I will tag the reports
> 'crossbuilt' and file as wishlist
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:35:41 +0100
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> >
> > The most common change is simply to retrieve the cross-building
> > metadata from dpkg-architecture in debian/rules:
> > http://wiki.debian.org/Emdebia
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:04:22 +0100
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Neil Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > I am therefore seeking a second layer of repository structure that
> > removes all /usr/share/locale/ data from all packages in Debian,
> > creates language-specific p
Neil Williams wrote:
> In this context, I believe "package documentation" should mean:
> "All files in the package that are installed beneath /usr/share/doc
> which are not mandated by Policy."
>
> Therefore, copyright and changelogs are excluded as are manpage and
> info pages but README, TODO, A
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:08:30 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Emdebian has currently built 91 Debian source packages in the
> > preparation of the basic root filesystem and other testing of the
> > toolset. All of t
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Atleast some packages now don't run the testsuite when
> DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE != DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE.
>
> Are there any other reasons why testsuites shouldn't be run?
Speed, and wanting to build a package even if its test suite is broken,
I guess.
Neil Williams wrote:
> There ne
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:13:48 +0100
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:47:17PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> >
> > Making the last stage optional means that -nocheck achieves nothing,
> > IMHO. If the maintainer chooses to allow 'make check' during the build,
> > I
I am sorry to bring up this issue again, but since #295527 is still
open, I think it is worth bringing attention back to it. IMHO at least
simply updated keyring would be great to have. It is pathetic to have
2005.05.28 version (especially since I am not in that one ;-) )
I am not competent enough
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> This is one of the changes sought by Emdebian to support using Debian
> on embedded devices where storage space is far from cheap and involves
> running counter to the current Debian default of "install everything
> that works, every
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:18:25PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> This is one of the changes sought by Emdebian to support using Debian
> on embedded devices where storage space is far from cheap and involves
> running counter to the current Debian default of "install everything
> that works, every
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:47:17PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> Making the last stage optional means that -nocheck achieves nothing,
> IMHO. If the maintainer chooses to allow 'make check' during the build,
> I believe that Policy should stipulate that the maintainer must ensure
> that 'make ch
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> Emdebian has currently built 91 Debian source packages in the
> preparation of the basic root filesystem and other testing of the
> toolset. All of those have involved some level of patches to support
> cross-building with CDBS packag
Quoting Neil Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I am therefore seeking a second layer of repository structure that
> removes all /usr/share/locale/ data from all packages in Debian,
> creates language-specific packages for each individual .mo file from
> each individual package and allies those to i
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:35:00 +0100
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:08:11PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Actually, Guillem has already filed the bug: 416450
> > [PROPOSAL] New option in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to avoid running test-suites
> >
> > What needs to hap
Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (06/11/2007):
> Get the option widely used, then documented (as a MUST) in policy,
> then agreed on as a release goal (or fix the bugs even if they're not
> RC :-)
AFAICT, it is sufficient to convince RMs to make it an RC goal. An
explicit MUST in the Policy isn't ma
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:08:11PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:53:05 +0100
> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I wanted to get around to introduce nocheck in a couple more packages,
> > but maybe it's better to just settle on it now and propose it for policy
>
Neil Williams, 2007-11-06 16:08:11 + :
> Actually, Guillem has already filed the bug: 416450 [PROPOSAL] New
> option in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to avoid running test-suites
>
> What needs to happen for that to be mandatory in Lenny?
Get the option widely used, then documented (as a MUST) in policy,
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:53:05 +0100
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wanted to get around to introduce nocheck in a couple more packages,
> but maybe it's better to just settle on it now and propose it for policy
> inclusion for lenny.
Actually, Guillem has already filed the bug: 416450
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:53:05 +0100
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 02:42:03PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > > nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
> > > actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
> > >
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 03:31:49PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2007/11/6, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
> > which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
> > imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_O
catch all kind of med on a very lesser price.
pharmstoregone.com.
Remove the dot from the end of the link to use it, thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2007/11/6, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
>> which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
>> imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION *must* completely
>> prevent the execut
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:31:49 +0100
"Miriam Ruiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/11/6, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
> > which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
> > imperative is that setting t
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 02:42:03PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
>>> actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
>>> part of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for all Emdebian builds.
>> Imh
Zitat von Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2007/11/6, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION *must* completely
prev
Hi,
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 08:42 +0900, Michal Čihař a écrit :
> Hi all
>
> how can I find what must be installed (or what I have to put in
> dependencies) to have Gdk with SVG support?
It is in librsvg2-common.
Cheers,
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 02:42:03PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
> > actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
> > part of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for all Emdebian builds.
>
> Imho this should be eith
2007/11/6, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
> which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
> imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION *must* completely
> prevent the execution of any compiled progr
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:42:03 +0100
Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
> > actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
> > part of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for all Emdebian builds.
>
> Imho th
> nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
> actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
> part of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for all Emdebian builds.
Imho this should be either nocheck or notest, supporting both is a bit
pointless. Using notest o
This is one of the changes sought by Emdebian to support using Debian
on embedded devices where storage space is far from cheap and involves
running counter to the current Debian default of "install everything
that works, every time, every package".
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/11/msg
This is one of the changes sought by Emdebian to support using Debian
on embedded devices where storage space is far from cheap and involves
running counter to the current Debian default of "install everything
that works, every time, every package".
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/11/msg
On a typical Gnome installation, /usr/share/locale/ can take up 250Mb
or more (those who attended the Emdebian talk at DebConf7 will have
heard how Emdebian currently handles this problem). [6] [7] [8]
This is one of the changes sought by Emdebian to support using Debian
on embedded devices where
Emdebian is the Embedded Debian Project - an official subproject of
Debian.
Emdebian now has a usable toolset [0], toolchains [1] and sufficient
test packages [2] to build a usable root filesystem [3] that is
configurable for different machines and machine variants [4]. Current
support is aimed to
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:18:43AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> You should use "-Wl,-rpath -Wl,/usr/lib/arb/lib" instead of
> "-Lrpath /usr/lib/arb/lib".
Better use the shorter form "-Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib/arb/lib".
Bastian
--
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
brian m. carlson crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> writes:
>
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 10:10:58PM -0500, Mohammad Derakhshani wrote:
> >Package: wnpp
> >Severity: wishlist
> >X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel lists.debian.org
> >
> >* Package name: zekr-quran-translations-ur
[...]
> > There is no authentic
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 08:51 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Could anybody enlighten me what compiler options I have to give to
> enable compile time and runtime correctly working. I tried
>
> g++ ... -Lrpath /usr/lib/arb/lib ... -L/lib
>
> which just caused
>
> /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/a
74 matches
Mail list logo
