Thank you both for your quick answer.
On 09/06/13 08:29, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 08:00:39AM +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>> Hello List,
>>
>> because of backward incompatibility I have to add a suffix to
>> my library package name. But lintian keep noticing the mismatch.
>>
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 08:00:39AM +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> because of backward incompatibility I have to add a suffix to
> my library package name. But lintian keep noticing the mismatch.
> I know the the soname of a library can be specify by passing
> appropriate options to
Changing package name is not enough. You should patch the library
build system to produce different soname and library filename
2013/6/9, Jerome BENOIT :
> Hello List,
>
> because of backward incompatibility I have to add a suffix to
> my library package name. But lintian keep noticing the mismatc
Hello List,
because of backward incompatibility I have to add a suffix to
my library package name. But lintian keep noticing the mismatch.
I know the the soname of a library can be specify by passing
appropriate options to the gcc tools: is a DH way to do so ?
Thanks in advance,
Jerome
--
To U
On 13234 March 1977, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Which begs the question if build management should be merged into dak
> to provide insight about which package is new. Obviously this could
> also be a defined interface but if we're going to start to reuse dak's
> interfaces for that... maybe not.
Only
Please note that I am not advocating for or against systemd, but...
With regards complexity and whether it is intrinsic or not, Rich
Hickey puts forward a more rigorous definition of complexity, and how
it is sometimes in tension with easiness...
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy-
On 13235 March 1977, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> As a possible workaround, upstream has suggested to provide the documentation
> already generated (could be for the submodules and/or the full doc, this has
> not been discussed yet). My first reaction has been to think that this
Hi,
since some people might not read planet debian, here is a link to my
first blog post in a series of posts dealing with the results of the
Debian systemd survey:
http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/2013/06/09/systemd-bloat.html
--
Best regards,
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
Subject: ITP: github-markup -- GitHub markup rendering
Package: wnpp
Owner: Per Andersson
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: github-markup
Version : 0.7.5~git.20130607.8154dca-1
Upstream Author : GitHub
* URL : http://github.com/github/markup
* License : MIT
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: editorconfig-el
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : EditorConfig Team
* URL or Web page : https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-emacs#readme
* License : Simplified BSD
Description : coding style indenter for all edi
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:31:59PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:19:04PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > That said, we provide GNOME Classic in wheezy for good reasons. Some of
> > Florian’s concerns are clearly among them.
>
> I have tried that and the annoyances wi
Hi Johannes.
[debian-devel@d.o cc'ed - seems it was dropped accidentally]
Quoting Johannes Schauer (2013-06-08 12:57:01)
> Hi,
>
> I'm the author of botch (the debian bootstrap tool) so I'm interested
> in the librdf-trine-perl situation.
>
> Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2013-06-08 12:21:18)
> >
On Ma, 28 mai 13, 03:02:22, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Now that we are done with systemd for the time being, can we have the
> flame war about replacing Exim with Postfix as the default MTA?
>
> Are there any objections other than "but I like it this way!"?
I just moved the DefaultMTA page to Debate/
Currently awe number of services assume the following setting.
A service that retries DNS lookups, does not need to declare a boot
ordering relation on a name server.
I am currently aware of two examples of this assumption:
1) When using systemd, the DNS server is a socket service, so no
Quoting Wookey (2013-06-07 17:55:48)
> +++ Jonas Smedegaard [2013-06-07 17:24 +0200]:
> > Quoting Paul Wise (2013-06-07 05:17:46)
> > > I would suggest the approach taken by the recent GSoC projects
> > > related to bootstrapping new ports. Multi-stage builds. First
> > > stage without docs and s
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
>
>
> Mathieu Malaterre schrieb:
>
>>On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Vincent Cheng
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Mathieu Malaterre
>>wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Russ Allbery
>>wrote:
> Ian Jackson wr
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:41:47PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx dixit:
>
> >If you add that requirement, it can be upto 24 bit smaller than
> >time_t. But as far as I know, there is no such requirement. In
>
> Sure. As I was saying, software in practice wants that,
> such as the
17 matches
Mail list logo
