On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 18:43:22 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> So what do you propose instead? It's not like native packages get
> NMUed because of great entertainment value of the NMU process, but
> because there's no better choice.
The same thing we usually do when confronted with a dead upstream
pro
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 21:41:11 +0100, Thomas Koch wrote:
> Paul Wise:
> > Which software is this and why does it need itself to build? Is it a
> > compiler?
> It's the dmd compiler for the language D. It still contains non free parts
> and
> isn't packaged. In the moment the compiler relies on a
Paul Wise:
> Which software is this and why does it need itself to build? Is it a
> compiler?
It's the dmd compiler for the language D. It still contains non free parts and
isn't packaged. In the moment the compiler relies on a C compiler and thus is
a nice example of a language that does depend
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Mail-Followup-To: -project ]
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:57:40PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> This policy states that the contact for trademark questions is
>> tradem...@debian.org. Where does this address go? I think it's impo
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 03:42:38AM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Can't we just annotate the foo-source binary package in some way - it
> should be pretty clear to the maintainer that he produces such a
> "special" package. Then for building other packages B-D-ing on the
> "special" package we co
2013/2/12 Colin Watson :
> IMO it's rational to patch manual pages to lower-case the section in
> such cases, and forward that patch upstream so you don't need to
> continue maintaining it. You'd have to do the same thing if they
> specified an entirely wrong section number, which does happen some
2013/2/12 Colin Watson :
> There is, as far as I can see, no code in dh_installman that forces the
> section to upper-case.
I guess this is due to .TH
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:46:12AM -0500, Istimsak Abdulbasir wrote:
> So "0700" is used to make a folder visible to the public like on file
> server?
While I wouldn't want to discourage people asking questions here, this
really is a very basic aspect of Unix; I think you would be well-advised
to
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:19:11PM +0400, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> No, it doesn't. The original problem was that it's hard to create
> symlink if you don't know the manpage section (dh_installman takes
> section from the header inside manpages and doesn't use the filename).
IMO it's rational to pat
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 03:18:20PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> The thing I concern it that I need to know exact file name for link target.
> If I write foo.1m in d/XXX.manpages, it results in foo.1M.gz (with
> capital M) in a package.
There is, as far as I can see, no code in dh_installman that fo
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:58:10PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 11.02.2013 13:46, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> > I have foo.1 in d/xxx.manpages, and only want to have
> > bar.1 -> foo.1, no matter where foo.1 get its location
> > or how it is compressed.
>
> You should not use symlinks, but source pages s
+++ Simon McVittie [2013-02-12 16:58 +]:
> Either GLib or pkg-config should document how you can avoid this cycle
> by doing a "stage 1" build of one project or the other. pkg-config used
> to have an embedded subset of GLib which it could use instead of the
> system copy to break this cycle, b
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 04:29:21PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> 2013/2/11 Kartik Mistry :
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> >> Is there any handy way to "link" manpages? That is I could just write
> >> "`bar` is described in `foo`". I know about .so, but looks urgly because
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:22:48AM -0500, Istimsak Abdulbasir wrote:
> To clarify something, upstream projects are developers that creat projects
> to be ported to the debian system.
Yes, that's fairly standard terminology among distributions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_%28software_
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 04:58:46PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Either GLib or pkg-config should document how you can avoid this cycle
> by doing a "stage 1" build of one project or the other.
You assume a dependency cycle between the src:pkg-config and
src:glib2.0. But instead I wrote that
On 12/02/13 12:40, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> But besides those simple cycles there are other cycles of length 2 when
> taking whole installation sets into account. For example src:pkg-config
> indirectly build depends on pkg-config because src:pkg-config build
> depends on libglib2.0-dev which depe
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:46:12AM -0500, Istimsak Abdulbasir wrote:
> So "0700" is used to make a folder visible to the public like on file
> server?
Huh?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
To clarify something, upstream projects are developers that creat projects
to be ported to the debian system. If this is not correct, please explain
the definition of an upstream project.
Istimsak Abdulbasir
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 07:55:42PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Which software is this and why does it need itself to build? Is it a compiler?
There are many examples of source packages that build depend on binary
packages they build. This includes languages like python, vala, sml,
freepascal an
Which software is this and why does it need itself to build? Is it a compiler?
Feel free to add a section to UpstreamGuide about this, it seems like
appropriate content.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subj
Hi,
it's the third time now that I'd like to write a mail to an upstream project
and kindly ask them not to depend on themselves to build. It would be helpful
to have a page like the UpstreamGuide[1] that shortly explains why it is
undesirable for distributions or in general if a software needs
21 matches
Mail list logo
