: GPL-2
Programming Lang: OCaml, PHP
Description : math rendering plugin for MediaWiki (new source package for)
The math extension for mediawiki is no longer shipped in versions 1.18+
and instead has joined the other extensions in their proper place.
This new source package is
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:47:04AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>>
>> When someone (e.g. an NMUer) does edit an upstream file and builds the
>> package then the source do not contain those changes while the binary
>> will. That is clearly going to cause no end
Le Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:47:04AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>
> When someone (e.g. an NMUer) does edit an upstream file and builds the
> package then the source do not contain those changes while the binary
> will. That is clearly going to cause no end of pains.
>
> Building the sour
Russ Allbery writes:
> Brian May writes:
>
>> Just a general observation, it is rather painful to have to set and
>> maintian QUILT_PATCHES by hand everytime I want to modify a patch. There
>> have been a number of times now I have accidentally created the patch in
>> the wrong directory, which
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:17:17AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>>
>> I can add a new option "--no-debian-patch" that would refuse to create the
>> automatic quilt patch debian-changes- and make it fail instead if
>> there are upstream changes.
>
> Hi Raphaël,
>
> ev
Brian May writes:
> Just a general observation, it is rather painful to have to set and
> maintian QUILT_PATCHES by hand everytime I want to modify a patch. There
> have been a number of times now I have accidentally created the patch in
> the wrong directory, which can be very confusing (mess tw
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:12:58PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Am I doing something wrong?
Just a general observation, it is rather painful to have to set and maintian
QUILT_PATCHES by hand everytime I want to modify a patch. There have been a
number of times now I have accidentally created the patc
Le Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Obviously, we don't want to have many formats in the archive and it's best
> if "3.0 (quilt)" is flexible enough so that we don't have to invent many
> other formats.
Le Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 02:49:39PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> But the package is unpacked before it can be patched. The patches
> themselves are in debian/patches: when they become available,
> debian/source/options and debian/source/format are available as
> well.
Right, but unpacking should be under control of
Le 27 nov. 09 à 14:28, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
That would be a useful compromise. How about the second half, which
is to not
patch anything during the unpacking of the package? Maybe this
could be
combined in a single ‘no-patch’ option, or an ali
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> That would be a useful compromise. How about the second half, which is to not
> patch anything during the unpacking of the package? Maybe this could be
> combined in a single ‘no-patch’ option, or an alias like ’3.0 (simple)’?
There's already --skip-pat
Le Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:09:45AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > even simpler, an option or a format that would completely ignore what is
> > outside the debian directory:
>
> That's option "-i.*". As I said I plan to support the -i -I option
> i
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:02:02AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > dpkg-source -b heimdal-1.3.1.dfsg.1
> > dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)'
> > dpkg-source: warning: patches have not been applied, applying them now (use
> > --no-preparation to override)
> > dpkg-source: info
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I've considered using TopGit to generate a real quilt patch set, but
>> it's kind of complicated and I'm not convinced that the work required
>> to generate the exported patch tree even with TopGit is really worth
>> it. Given
also sprach Raphael Hertzog [2009.11.26.0920 +0100]:
> I would be ok to add support for this in "3.0 (quilt)":
> - add an option "--single-debian-patch" that could be set in
> debian/source/options. With this option dpkg-source would update
> debian/patches/debian-changes (instead of debian-ch
Le Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:09:45AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> you can end up building a binary package that does not match the source
> package that you upload together with the binary packages.
“You”? Not me. What I upload comes from sbuild.
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've considered using TopGit to generate a real quilt patch set, but
> it's kind of complicated and I'm not convinced that the work required to
> generate the exported patch tree even with TopGit is really worth it.
> Given that, for packages currentl
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> even simpler, an option or a format that would completely ignore what is
> outside the debian directory:
That's option "-i.*". As I said I plan to support the -i -I option
inside debian/source/options just like I recently added support for -z -Z
there.
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Joey Hess wrote:
>>> I understand that you do not want to throw away your work on this
>>> patch management system, but by making it optional, I think that you
>>> will actually increase your chances of success…
>> I think that's very wise.
> It is
Le Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:17:17AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> I can add a new option "--no-debian-patch" that would refuse to create the
> automatic quilt patch debian-changes- and make it fail instead if
> there are upstream changes.
Hi Raphaël,
even simpler, an option or a format tha
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > Bugs as of today.
>> > * Packages with different patch systems like linux-2.6. In this case
>> > dpkg-source ignores failures to register a patch and produces
>> > sources without the changes. (#557618)
>>
>> As
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Bugs as of today.
> > * Packages with different patch systems like linux-2.6. In this case
> > dpkg-source ignores failures to register a patch and produces
> > sources without the changes. (#557618)
>
> As discussed on IRC this is a matter
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I understand that you do not want to throw away your work on this patch
> > management system, but by making it optional, I think that you will actually
> > increase your chances of success…
>
> I think that's very wise.
It is optional already. Just don't
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 09:30 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > In the end, I decided to trust nothing and to verify if the first
> > patch can be applied or not. If it can be applied, we assume that the
> > patches have not been applied and we apply them
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> since a few weeks the Debian archive accepts source package using the new
>> formats "3.0 (quilt)" and "3.0 (native)".
>
> I tried "3.0 (quilt)" with several packages today and none worked
> properly, so s
Joey Hess writes:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> That's just wrong. I do it without problems by using the .quiltrc
>> snippet from /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source.
>
> Hmm, that is verging on "beware of the leopard" non-obviousness. I mean,
> you just argued in another mail that such a README.sou
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-23 09:50:15 CET]:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> > Actually, I feel rather to convert my packages to 3.0 (native) + quilt.
>> > The way quilt is implied in 3.0 (quilt) doesn't seem to be helpful (to
>> > me).
>>
>> Yay for r
On Mon, Nov 23 2009, Joey Hess wrote:
> Perhaps Raphael in turn was sensing that I didn't have a deep knowledge
> of git -- I had only used it for a month or so at the time. And in fact,
> we now know a much better way to do a git based format. I have been
> considering working on it again, after
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:30:59PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Ok, I did the following:
Disregard those results, I screwed up and forgot to cd into the new
working directory after I moved the old one. So it looked OK but
wasn't.
Retry. Hmmm. So far it looks better...
--
Brian May
--
To UNSUBSC
On So, 22 Nov 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > and as far as I see:
> > clean: unpatch
>
> Well, the latter is wrong - this breaks if you're patching the build system.
Ah, good to know, but well, my poiint is that this is a bit a PITA
if the system changes again and again. But that has nothing to
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:02:02AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Brian May wrote:
> > Next problem:
> >
> > [...]
> > dpkg-source -b heimdal-1.3.1.dfsg.1
> > dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)'
> > dpkg-source: warning: patches have not been applied, applyi
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> That's just wrong. I do it without problems by using the .quiltrc
> snippet from /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source.
Hmm, that is verging on "beware of the leopard" non-obviousness. I mean,
you just argued in another mail that such a README.source would soon not
be necessa
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Maybe it is because you never wanted to listen to people who were
> interested to have the debian directory in a tar.gz, without a patch
> system on top of it?
>
> I answered to your feedback request, realised that you were not going to
> change
> your mind about format ‘3
Le Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:32:40AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> > Or you start and propose a different format that can be mostly like 3.0
> > (quilt) for the result (multiple tars) but without the implicit quilt
> > constraints.
>
> Not me, no. And people should have requested that 1-2 ye
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 01:53:34AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:50:15AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > For each patch:
> > - ...
> >
> > Note: this works only if quilt is not installed (or if you ensure
> > dpkg-source is called with --without-quilt which you currently
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 09:30 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> In the end, I decided to trust nothing and to verify if the first
> patch can be applied or not. If it can be applied, we assume that the
> patches have not been applied and we apply them all (unless
> --no-preparation is given). If quilt
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Brian May wrote:
> Next problem:
>
> [...]
> dpkg-source -b heimdal-1.3.1.dfsg.1
> dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)'
> dpkg-source: warning: patches have not been applied, applying them now (use
> --no-preparation to override)
> dpkg-source: info: applying
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:50:15AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> For each patch:
> - apply patch
> - dpkg-buildpackage -S
> - rename debian/patches/debian-changes- into something else
>and edit its headers
> - fix debian/patches/series
>
> Note: this works only if quilt is not installed (
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:12:58PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Am I doing something wrong?
>
> sys11:/home/brian/tree/heimdal# lintian heimdal_1.2.e1.dfsg.1-5_i386.changes
> warning: lintian's authors do not recommend running it with root privileges!
> internal error: command failed with error code
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> I tried "3.0 (quilt)" with several packages today and none worked
> properly, so several large packages will be stuck with "3.0 (native)".
1.0 is not going away even if we change the default.
> Bugs as of today.
Won't comment here. I have already comme
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> since a few weeks the Debian archive accepts source package using the new
> formats "3.0 (quilt)" and "3.0 (native)".
I tried "3.0 (quilt)" with several packages today and none worked
properly, so several large packages will be stu
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow [2009-11-23 09:48:36 CET]:
>> Why do you think that? I can split patches any which way and edit the
>> debian/patches/series to match all completly without quilt.
>
> How so? I don't find anything in man dpkg or dpkg-source that would
> help with
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:10:51AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-23 09:50:15 CET]:
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > > Actually, I feel rather to convert my packages to 3.0 (native) + quilt.
> > > The way quilt is implied in 3.0 (quilt) doesn't seem to
* Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-23 09:50:15 CET]:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > Actually, I feel rather to convert my packages to 3.0 (native) + quilt.
> > The way quilt is implied in 3.0 (quilt) doesn't seem to be helpful (to
> > me).
>
> Yay for reuploading the full tarball for e
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:30:00AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Well, they can drop the patch in debian/patches, and add it to
> > > the end of debian/patches/series. If quilt is installed, it should
> > > work as dpkg-source will use quilt
* Goswin von Brederlow [2009-11-23 09:48:36 CET]:
> Why do you think that? I can split patches any which way and edit the
> debian/patches/series to match all completly without quilt.
How so? I don't find anything in man dpkg or dpkg-source that would
help with that.
> It only becomes simpler w
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Actually, I feel rather to convert my packages to 3.0 (native) + quilt.
> The way quilt is implied in 3.0 (quilt) doesn't seem to be helpful (to
> me).
Yay for reuploading the full tarball for each revision! I'd rather you
keep using 1.0 instead of doi
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> Hi! :)
>
> * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-22 10:48:14 CET]:
>> > Note that the squeeze release goal only talks about 3.0 (quilt), not 3.0
>> > (native), which kind of suggests 3.0 (quilt) is being forced down.
>> > That's maybe not what you are thinking, but it's how i
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Well, they can drop the patch in debian/patches, and add it to
> > the end of debian/patches/series. If quilt is installed, it should
> > work as dpkg-source will use quilt applied to know
> > whether patches needs to be applied. If quilt is not
Hi! :)
* Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-22 10:48:14 CET]:
> > Note that the squeeze release goal only talks about 3.0 (quilt), not 3.0
> > (native), which kind of suggests 3.0 (quilt) is being forced down.
> > That's maybe not what you are thinking, but it's how it feels.
>
> Well, the combina
Mike Hommey writes:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:30:45AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> > > Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its
>> > > meta-informati
Mike Hommey writes:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its
>> meta-information. Or because maybe you're applying 2 separate patches in
>> the same NMU upload.
>
> "Fixing cosmetic issues or changin
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> The modifications are implied, but it means that the source format is
>> already this "heavy modification", on a similarly heavy modification
>> scale. Additionally, if someone wants to sepearte the patches into
>> feat
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> You need to put "3.0 (quilt)" or "3.0 (native)" in debian/source/format to
> indicate the desired format to dpkg-source (see the dpkg-source(1) manual
> page for more information).
Am I doing something wrong?
sys11:/home/brian/tre
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:30:45AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its
> > > meta-information. Or because maybe you're
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > My point is : dpkg-source -x should be idempotent, whatever other
> > packages are installed when you do it. The fact that you can't
> > dpkg-source -x, and *then* install quilt to manage the patches is a
> >
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Also, as a side comment, I would like to add that the “NMU workflow” often
> advertised on this list completely ignores that a large number of packages are
> stored in a VCS where all DDs have write acceess. Uploading a package with an
> anonymous and mo
Le Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:51:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> Currently a package without a patch system needs heavy modifications in
> debian/rules to setup the patch system. So when you want to add a patch in
> debian/patches and not in the .diff.gz, you have to choose a patch system
>
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its
> > meta-information. Or because maybe you're applying 2 separate patches in
> > the same NMU upload.
>
> "Fixing cosm
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its
> meta-information. Or because maybe you're applying 2 separate patches in
> the same NMU upload.
"Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the packaging style in NMUs
Hi,
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:51:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Currently a package without a patch system needs heavy modifications in
> > debian/rules to setup the patch system. So when you want to add a patch in
> > debian/patches and not in th
Hi,
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Olivier Berger wrote:
> Maybe that's very explicit for eveyone, but I couldn't find any
> explenation for regular humans of what "quilt" is (ok, I think I have a
> clue, but remember not all newcomers may be familiar with it for
> instance), and then what the difference ar
Hi.
Le samedi 21 novembre 2009 à 16:54 +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> We have collected some question/answers from early adopters in
> the dedicated wiki page, the most important information is pasted
> below. We hope you will find it helpful to convert your own packages.
> http:/
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 01:16:47AM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Besides that that snippet is broken? It made me nuts that quilt people
> are changing that snippet and breaking many packages, like all of mine.
> It should be:
> build-stamp: $(QUILT_STAMPFN)
> ...
> and as far as I see:
>
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> Hi!
>
> Some few comments.
>
> * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-21 16:54:36 CET]:
>> * even if you don't have any upstream patch right now, next time that
>>someone must NMU your package, they can cleanly add a patch (with a
>>proper DEP-3 header) without havin
On Sa, 21 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Heavy modification? What's so heavy on three entries there?
>
> include /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make
>
> clean:
> [...]
> unpatch
>
> build-stamp: patch
Besides that that snippet is broken? It made me nuts that quilt people
are changing th
* Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-21 20:51:51 CET]:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-21 16:54:36 CET]:
> > > * even if you don't have any upstream patch right now, next time that
> > >someone must NMU your package, they can cleanly add a patch (wi
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:51:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Currently a package without a patch system needs heavy modifications in
> debian/rules to setup the patch system. So when you want to add a patch in
> debian/patches and not in the .diff.gz, you have to choose a patch system
> in pl
Hi,
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-21 16:54:36 CET]:
> > * even if you don't have any upstream patch right now, next time that
> >someone must NMU your package, they can cleanly add a patch (with a
> >proper DEP-3 header) without having to modify
Hi!
Some few comments.
* Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-21 16:54:36 CET]:
> * even if you don't have any upstream patch right now, next time that
>someone must NMU your package, they can cleanly add a patch (with a
>proper DEP-3 header) without having to modify the build system
Thi
Just a few lines about appropiate mailing lists and their languages.
Hallo David,
schön, dass du mit Debian eine Distribution gefunden hast, für die es
sich für dich zu lohnen scheint, etwas mehr zu tun; trotzdem gibt es ein
paar Regeln, an die auch du gebeten bist, dich zu halten:
1. Man sende
Please help, I have some questions regarding building Source Packages.
Made some changes to source package newspost.
Successful with following:
There exists file: newspost_2.1.1.orig.tar.gz
File: newspost_2.1.2.beta.tar.gz ( erzeugt mit dpkg-source -b
newspost-2.1.2.beta)
- all files, also t
Bitte um Hilfe bei einigen Fragen betr. des Bauens von Quellpaketen:
Habe einige Erweiterungen / Änderungen gemacht zum Programm (Source
Paket) newspost.
Folgendes ist mir inzwischen gelungen:
Vorhanden Datei: newspost_2.1.1.orig.tar.gz
Datei: newspost_2.1.2.beta.tar.gz ( erzeugt mit dpkg-so
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> My last call for test[1] didn't lead to any feedback at all, which is a pity
> given the length of the discussion we had about patch management. I'm
> pretty sure people are interested in the topic... and it's important to
> make sure that the new code
unctionnality. (Maybe we'll put it in
experimental for a few days first, but that's not decided yet)
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Cheers,
[1]
http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2008/03/16/new-source-package-formats-call-for-tests/
http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2008/03/msg00155.ht
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:47:10AM +0100, David Moore wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have developed some new software, an audioscrobbler client for
> _l_a_s_t_._f_m, which
> I would
> like to see included, probably under Multimedia.
>
> It consists of two simple C source files - how do I go about ge
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:47:10AM +0100, David Moore wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have developed some new software, an audioscrobbler client for last.fm,
> which I would
> like to see included, probably under Multimedia.
>
> It consists of two simple C source files - how do I go about getting it
> include
Hi,
I have developed some new software, an audioscrobbler client for last.fm, which I would
like to see included, probably under Multimedia.
It consists of two simple C source files - how do I go about getting it included
in Debian?
Cheers,
David.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
http://dmct
I'm planning to remove ifp-line from the archive now that libifp (and
its ifp-line-equivalent) is mature and tested. Right now, the ifp-line
source package generates an ifp-line binary package, and the libifp
source package generates an ifp-line-libifp package (that Provides:
ifp-line).
What's the
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As it happens, due to some changes in the details of the override file
> handling, new source package names will soon make the package go to NEW too,
> even though there already exists a binary package by that name. That the new
&
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 07:01:07PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> this week I uploaded a new source package, libkpathsea3, that produces
> existing binary packages (libkpathsea3, libkpathsea-dev). I was
> surprised to learn that this package was not subject to NEW processing,
> bu
(Please note the M-F-T -devel)
Hi,
this week I uploaded a new source package, libkpathsea3, that produces
existing binary packages (libkpathsea3, libkpathsea-dev). I was
surprised to learn that this package was not subject to NEW processing,
but rather was simply treated as any existing package
You may now upload packages in the new source format to `unstable'.
Packages in `stable' will continue to be in the old format.
Note that the caveats in my release announcement on debian-changes for
1.3.8 apply:
* The new source tools have not been very well tested and will have
bugs, some prob
I'd like people to take a look at what I've done here. The dpkg 1.3.0
binary package is fine to install and use (and indeed, it fixes a bug
or two), but the whole thing ought not to be moved even into unstable
until we've finalised the new source package format.
The new dpkg con
84 matches
Mail list logo
