On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:54:52AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> But then again a bug in webim-sendmail would keep webmin-postfix out
> of testing. But that shouldn't be a problem if you fix RC bugs
> quickly.
True.
Especially since sendmail has a history of security problems...
The exact
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 02:21:55PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > No, it is based on the assumption that a buildd will only install
> > things listed in the Build-Depends, which means it will catch
> > stuff that only builds on the maintainers workstation b
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Brian May wrote:
>
> > You obviously did not understand my scheme then.
> >
> > webmin-postfix and webmin-sendmail would still get built as
> > seperate *.deb packages.
> >
> > They just share the one source package.
> >
>
> Oh
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 02:21:55PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> No, it is based on the assumption that a buildd will only install things
> listed in the Build-Depends, which means it will catch stuff that only
> builds on the maintainers workstation because they aren't building
> inside a chroot and
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:39:52PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Well for now I'm going to solve the immediate policy violation by reducing
> webmin.orig.tar.gz. I'll implement your scheme when the new release comes
GREAT!
> out in the next couple of weeks. (Perhps you'd like to file a wishli
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Brian May wrote:
> You obviously did not understand my scheme then.
>
> webmin-postfix and webmin-sendmail would still get built as seperate
> *.deb packages.
>
> They just share the one source package.
>
Oh yeah alright. Now I get it.
> A user who installs webmin-postfix.de
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:26:19PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> For whom? For instance under your scheme, a user of webmin-postfix will
> also get webmin-sendmail depite the fact he is unlikely to need it. Think
You obviously did not understand my scheme then.
webmin-postfix and webmin-sendma
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Brian May wrote:
>
> #1: One source code package by module is an overkill.
>
For whom? For instance under your scheme, a user of webmin-postfix will
also get webmin-sendmail depite the fact he is unlikely to need it. Think
of Webmin modules like Perl CPAN modules. It doesn'
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 10:23:14AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> As I understand it, there is an script that does the
> separation for you when you package the .debs. Is there a reason a
> similar script can't be invoked by debian/rules to create the
> multiple debs from the same source
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > >
> > > > The only problem with that is the current failure to comply to policy,
> >
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:20:42PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> As for the problem with the source file containing non-free code,
> if you have prestine source code, this is something that
> really needs to get fixed upstream :-(, eg. split into two
> files.
Looking at the other messages in the thr
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 10:04:40AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Ok. Lets leave aside for a moment the .debs which would go into contrib
> or non-free so would have to be built seperately. What happens if
> webmin-squid has an RC bug? As Goswin said, all the webmin-* packages
> will be held ba
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:40:18 -0400 (EDT), Jaldhar H Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Since the source goes into Debian main, keeping the sources
>> together means that we are distributing non-free material in Debian
>> main, which not only violates
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Since the source goes into Debian main, keeping the sources
> together means that we are distributing non-free material in Debian
> main, which not only violates the social contract, it may well be
> illegal (or have people who distribute deb
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:03:15 -0400 (EDT), Jaldhar H Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> It has source for all the modules including the non-free ones.
> However the binary packages for those modules are built from
> seperate source packages not this one.
> The only reason for having the webmin.ori
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >
> > > The only problem with that is the current failure to comply to policy,
> > > i.e. build from source as they should.
> > >
> >
> > The qu
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> The only problem with that is the current failure to comply to policy,
> i.e. build from source as they should.
>
The question remains is simply removing all the extra source from
webmin-n.orig.tar.gz except that which is necessary to build the w
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > The only problem with that is the current failure to comply to policy,
> > i.e. build from source as they should.
> >
>
> The question remains is simply removing all the extra source from
> web
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:04:40 -0400 (EDT), Jaldhar H Vyas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ok. Lets leave aside for a moment the .debs which would go into
> contrib or non-free so would have to be built seperately. What
Whoa there. Are you telling me that webmin's orig.tar.gz that
is in ma
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok. Lets leave aside for a moment the .debs which would go into contrib
> or non-free so would have to be built seperately. What happens if
> webmin-squid has an RC bug? As Goswin said, all the webmin-* packages
> will be held back from testing.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:16:10 -0400 (EDT), Jaldhar H Vyas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Then the source should be split in a way that the normal
>> debian/rules files work and common files (like headers) stuffed
>> into a -dev package you can buil
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Yep. And given that upstream offers webmin as an all-in-one solution to
> web-based management needs, I don't really see any reason why they
> shouldn't be kept lock-step with one another.
As Debian developers our goal is to make an integrated OS whic
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Brian May wrote:
> When Jaldhar takes about dependancies, I assume he means normal
> "Depends", not "Build-Depends"???
>
Correct.
[...]
> Source package has the following files (note: this is called a "source
> package" not a "binary package"):
>
> webmin_1.100.orig.tar.gz
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 09:16:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:38:10PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> >
> > If they get hit by a bus, reassigned by their job to Outer Mongolia, or
> > just plain get bored with doing it, we lose that benefit entirely, as
> > things stand
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 12:20:37AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Source package has the following files (note: this is called a "source
> > package" not a "binary package"):
> >
> > webmin_1.100.orig.tar.gz
> > webmin_1.100-2.diff.gz
> > webmin_1
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Brian May wrote:
> Effectively Jaldhar just needs to merge the source packages together,
> and keep the binary packages split.
>
> However, Jaldhar continues to respond with "we need the binary packages
> split.".
/me mutters chewbacca under his breath.
26 matches
Mail list logo
