[Goswin von Brederlow]
> But how would -dev packages signal that they need support for this?
> They do not depend on pkg-config as they are usable without. Should
> they Breaks: pkg-config (<< ver)? Seems too strong.
Alternatively, create a symlink into /usr/lib/pkgconfig/ in postinst,
if one isn
also sprach Russ Allbery [2010.02.04.1208 +1300]:
> I generally do not. Doing so with a tool like TopGit is a little awkward
> and requires more steps, and I don't see much utility in doing so. I
> think it's easier to just manage Git branches.
All that TopGit really does is help you in merging
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 04:25:40PM -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> I receive the following error from lintian and am looking for some
> guidance/best practices.
>
> % lintian --pedantic cdpr_2.3-3.dsc
> P: cdpr source: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system Makefile and
> 1 more
This isn't an
Matt Zagrabelny writes:
> I read through the git-buildpackage docs and also a HOWTO by Russ
> Allbery [1] regarding git and Debian packaging. I am wondering if those
> who use git to manage their source package development are also using
> the debian/patches mechanism for modifying the upstream t
Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 16:25 -0600, Matt Zagrabelny a écrit :
> I read through the git-buildpackage docs and also a HOWTO by Russ
> Allbery [1] regarding git and Debian packaging. I am wondering if those
> who use git to manage their source package development are also using
> the debian/pa
Greetings,
I read through the git-buildpackage docs and also a HOWTO by Russ
Allbery [1] regarding git and Debian packaging. I am wondering if those
who use git to manage their source package development are also using
the debian/patches mechanism for modifying the upstream tarball.
I receive the
Norbert Preining wrote:
> Dear Luk, dear Jörg, dear ftp-master, dear whoever,
>
> please help me with fixing that problem:
>
> Now I have the following problem:
> - sending a dcut rm of the files I get:
> Log of processing your commands file
> /dcut.Norbert_Preining__preining_debian_org_.12651574
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 11:01 +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:37:08AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> > ]] Tourneur Henry-Nicolas
> >
> > | * License : No license, only a copyright file
> >
> > Surely that makes it illegal for us to distribute?
>
> Actually, it
Dear Luk, dear Jörg, dear ftp-master, dear whoever,
please help me with fixing that problem:
Now I have the following problem:
- sending a dcut rm of the files I get:
Log of processing your commands file
/dcut.Norbert_Preining__preining_debian_org_.1265157430.5010.commands:
> rm --searchdirs mai
On Feb 03, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> But, that's still a license. But look carefully, it says "without fee" in the
> license. I don't know if that means "you can use it without paying anyone" or
> "you can only redistribute it if you don't charge anyone".
The first meaning is the one widely accepted
"Guus Sliepen" Ecrivait:
>> So it's more some kind of errors from my side because that wasn't very
>> clear.
>> Should I update this bug to put MIT-like as license ?
>
> It's better to include the whole license if it isn't exactly equal to a
> standard license.
>
I'll update the package tonigh
Simon McVittie writes:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:17:19PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> > In the meantime, is there consensus that shuffling the development files
>> > into
>> > /usr/lib/triplet too is at least harmless, and that Multi-Arch: same is
>> > appropriate
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:06:28AM +0100, Henry-Nicolas Tourneur wrote:
> > | * License : No license, only a copyright file
> >
> > Surely that makes it illegal for us to distribute?
> >
> Yeah but what Craig Small said on mentors is that looks very much like a MIT
> license - see COPYIN
"Tollef Fog Heen" Ecrivait:
> ]] Tourneur Henry-Nicolas
>
> | * License : No license, only a copyright file
>
> Surely that makes it illegal for us to distribute?
>
> --
> Tollef Fog Heen
> UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
>
>
>
Yeah but what Craig S
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:37:08AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Tourneur Henry-Nicolas
>
> | * License : No license, only a copyright file
>
> Surely that makes it illegal for us to distribute?
Actually, it does have a license, which is in the COPYING file and at the top
of all t
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Simon McVittie
>
> | In the meantime, is there consensus that shuffling the development files
> into
> | /usr/lib/triplet too is at least harmless, and that Multi-Arch: same is
> | appropriate for -dev packages where all the arch-dependent files are in
> | arch-spec
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Simon McVittie
>
> | `pkg-config --debug 2>&1 | grep i486` (on my i386) reveals that pkg-config
> | already looks in /usr/lib/pkgconfig/i486-linux-gnu; perhaps it could be made
> | to search /usr/lib/TRIPLET/pkgconfig too (hackish version:
> | /usr/lib/pkgconfig/TRIP
]] Tourneur Henry-Nicolas
| * License : No license, only a copyright file
Surely that makes it illegal for us to distribute?
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a s
18 matches
Mail list logo
