Bug#786702: ITP: debmake-doc -- Guide for Debian Maintainers

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Osamu Aoki * Package name: debmake-doc Version : 1.0.1 Upstream Author : Osamu Aoki * URL : http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/debmake-doc.git * License : MIT/X Programming Lang: docbook with Shell, C, Python

Re: Bug#707601: ITP: debmake -- helper script to make the Debian source package

ng to > > > update maint-guide using this so I need to be less wordy and the debmake > > > program does more. > > > > Should packaging-dev recommend debmake? > > Not yet. dh-make should be the standard operationg procedure. > > Let's see how this new

Re: Bug#707601: ITP: debmake -- helper script to make the Debian source package

Hi, On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 02:31:43PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: > Am Montag, den 13.05.2013, 21:06 +0900 schrieb Osamu Aoki: > > This may be still buggy and may needs some more work. I was thinking to > > update maint-guide using this so I need to be less wordy and the debm

Re: Bug#707601: ITP: debmake -- helper script to make the Debian source package

Hi, On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:43:59AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 02:52:17PM +0200, Alberto Garcia wrote: > > Also, is there any relation between this and the old 'debmake' package > > or they just happen to have the same name? > &g

Re: Bug#707601: ITP: debmake -- helper script to make the Debian source package

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 02:52:17PM +0200, Alberto Garcia wrote: > Also, is there any relation between this and the old 'debmake' package > or they just happen to have the same name? My first thought upon seeing this ITP was, whyever for would anyone want to resurrect debmake

Re: Bug#707601: ITP: debmake -- helper script to make the Debian source package

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:36:39AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The debmake command invoked in the upstream source tree without > > any option can generate template files which is good enough to > > create a single arch=any Debian binary package for local use. > This

Re: Bug#707601: ITP: debmake -- helper script to make the Debian source package

Am Montag, den 13.05.2013, 21:06 +0900 schrieb Osamu Aoki: > This may be still buggy and may needs some more work. I was thinking to > update maint-guide using this so I need to be less wordy and the debmake > program does more. Should packaging-dev recommend debmake? -- Benjamin Dru

Re: Bug#707601: ITP: debmake -- helper script to make the Debian source package

Debian > > source package. The generated debian/rules file uses the new dh command > > syntax from the debhelper (>9) package. > > . > > The debmake command invoked in the upstream source tree without any > > option can generate template files which is good en

Re: Bug#707601: ITP: debmake -- helper script to make the Debian source package

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:36:39AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > This sounds almost exactly like what dh-make already does, with a few > incremental enhancements. Why should we have this in the archive as a > separate package, instead of improving the existing tool? Dividing efforts > between tw

Re: Bug#707601: ITP: debmake -- helper script to make the Debian source package

> syntax from the debhelper (>9) package. > . > The debmake command invoked in the upstream source tree without any > option can generate template files which is good enough to create a > single arch=any Debian binary package for local use. The generated files > should be ed

Bug#707601: ITP: debmake -- helper script to make the Debian source package

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Osamu Aoki * Package name: debmake Version : 4.0.0 Upstream Author : Osamu Aoki * URL : * License : MIT Programming Lang: Python3 Description : helper script to make the Debian source package This package

Bug#469049: marked as done (debmake is deprecated)

Your message dated Sun, 2 Mar 2008 20:39:55 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Re: Processed: Re: debmake is deprecated has caused the Debian Bug report #469049, regarding debmake is deprecated to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem ha

Re: Processed: Re: debmake is deprecated

My bad, all of these package are not found in stable or testing. Transition is finished. Sorry for the noise. Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > owner 469049 Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bug#469049: debmake is deprec

Processed: Re: debmake is deprecated

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > owner 469049 Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bug#469049: debmake is deprecated Owner recorded as Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > # see below for explanation > severity 372964 important Bug#372964: xtranslate: debmake is de

Bug#469049: debmake is deprecated

Package: general Severity: normal I am opening this bug to have a tracker for the "debmake is deprecated" transition progress. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00019.html for details. The remaining bugs, that will become blockers, tagged important, ar

Re: ITK: debmake

On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 02:50:36PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Saturday 31 December 2005 18.48, Osamu Aoki wrote: > [debmake] > > > As I see in debian-reference: This should have been developers-reference :-) > > --- > > A.3.2 debmake > > > [...

Re: ITK: debmake

On Saturday 31 December 2005 18.48, Osamu Aoki wrote: [debmake] > As I see in debian-reference: > --- > A.3.2 debmake > [...] > However, it's not a bug to use debmake. > --- > I should remove last sentence from all translations. Or just drop mention of debmake alltog

developers-reference update for ITK: debmake

On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 06:22:20PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As I see in debian-reference: Of course, it is developers-reference :-) > > --- > > A.3.2 debmake > > > > debmake, a precursor to debhel

Re: ITK: debmake

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As I see in debian-reference: > --- > A.3.2 debmake > > debmake, a precursor to debhelper, is a more coarse-grained debian/rules > assistant. It includes two main programs: deb-ma

Re: ITK: debmake

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 07:13:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > There are less than 80 packages in unstable still using it, and there > is an excellent package called debhelper which can do everything that > debmake does and probably much better, so it does not make much sense > to

Re: ITK: debmake

Ok, to make things gradual, this is what I plan to do: * Announce this in -devel-announce to celebrate the new year. * Wait a few weeks. * Submit wishlist bugs against all packages affected (which I hope they will not be as much as 78 by then). * After the release of etch, debmake will be

Re: ITK: debmake

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Friday 30 December 2005 03.18, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Santiago: > > > As a realistic goal, I estimate that etch will be the last release > > > containing debmake, but of course, I would be deligthed to see it >

Re: ITK: debmake

On Friday 30 December 2005 03.18, Anthony Towns wrote: > Santiago: > > As a realistic goal, I estimate that etch will be the last release > > containing debmake, but of course, I would be deligthed to see it > > happen sooner. > > It would be pretty lame if we couldn&#x

Re: ITK: debmake

Santiago Vila wrote: > Therefore, I hereby announce my Intention To Kill debmake. Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James R. Van Zandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >emacspeak I think this has been orphaned, and is waiting for adoption. Cc'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ITK: debmake

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 07:13:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > Stage 2. "Please switch away from debmake". > This is the stage that starts today. So, everybody please, switch away > from debmake. [...] > *) If you are the maintainer of lintian or a similar tool, you are we

Re: ITK: debmake

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 10:59:22AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I've adopted gnubg with Corrin's permission and this is now fixed in the > version just uploaded yesterday. Here's an updated and now hopefully complete list that also takes into account build-depends-indep. Removing gnubg from the l

Re: ITK: debmake

Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Corrin Lakeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >gnubg I've adopted gnubg with Corrin's permission and this is now fixed in the version just uploaded yesterday. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- To UNSUBSCR

Re: ITK: debmake

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 07:13:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > There are less than 80 packages in unstable still using it, and there > is an excellent package called debhelper which can do everything that > debmake does and probably much better, so it does not make much sense > to

ITK: debmake

Greetings. There are less than 80 packages in unstable still using it, and there is an excellent package called debhelper which can do everything that debmake does and probably much better, so it does not make much sense to keep debmake alive forever. Therefore, I hereby announce my Intention To

Re: debmake x dh-make

On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:19:41 +0900 Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit: > > > > Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake, > > > how many use debhelper and how man

Re: debmake x dh-make

> Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake. > > If people use it and someone is willing to maintain it, it will continue > to exist in the distribution, as it happens with every other package. I think that if you survey the set of packages that comtin

Re: debmake x dh-make

Daniel Ruoso wrote: > > Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake. > > But the question is... shouldn't it be? debhelper used to include a dh_debstd that did more or less the same thing as debstd. After a few years I noticed that noone had ever u

Re: debmake x dh-make

Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit: > > Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake, > > how many use debhelper and how many use something completely different? > $ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends debmake Sources | egrep '^Packa

Re: debmake x dh-make

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:36:58AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote: > > Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake, > > how many use debhelper and how many use something completely different? > > $ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends debmake Sources | egrep '^

Re: debmake x dh-make

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:08:11PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:49:44PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > On 04 Apr 2002 08:27:05 -0300 > > Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why debmake still remains in the distribution if

Re: debmake x dh-make

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 21:08:11 +0200, Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are there any statistics somewhere, how many packages use debmake, > how many use debhelper and how many use something completely different? $ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends debmake Sources | egrep '^Pack

Re: debmake x dh-make

Hi. On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:49:44PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > On 04 Apr 2002 08:27:05 -0300 > Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by > > dh_make? > > Because many packa

Re: debmake x dh-make

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:42:28PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > Santiago Vila wrote: > > Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake. > > But the question is... shouldn't it be? They have different design goals. Apart from anything else, d

Re: debmake x dh-make

Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake. > But the question is... shouldn't it be? NO! debmake was deeply flawed in its interface and implementation, and were debhelper to be a drop-in repla

Re: debmake x dh-make

> Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake. But the question is... shouldn't it be? Em Qui, 2002-04-04 às 08:50, Santiago Vila escreveu: > Daniel Ruoso wrote: > > Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by > &g

Re: debmake x dh-make

On 04 Apr 2002 08:27:05 -0300 Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by > dh_make? Because many packages still depend on it. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~

Re: debmake x dh-make

Daniel Ruoso wrote: > Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by > dh_make? Because it's not. debhelper is not a drop-in replacement for debmake. If people use it and someone is willing to maintain it, it will continue to exist in the distribution, as it ha

debmake x dh-make

Why debmake still remains in the distribution if it's replaced by dh_make? The question is because I discovered that the script I used to create all the 90 debian packages I maintain (not in the Debian dist, it's in the software house I work for) are built incorrectly, because I use

Re: Bug#23618: debmake: debstd corrupts .a files!

s, if your case is in the > remaining 5%, then the debstd provided by debmake, as is, is not suitable > for your package. I would say that debstd should not touch that which it does not understand. This is perfectly reasonable. It does not understand coff, which is fine. It should not tou

Re: Bug#23618: debmake: debstd corrupts .a files!

%, then the debstd provided by debmake, as is, is not suitable for your package. I would like to add that there are two different issues here: 1. You didn't know that debstd does "strip --strip-debug" on static libraries. By reading debstd(1), I realize that this may be a "documenta

Re: Bug#23618: debmake: debstd corrupts .a files!

repoen 23618 stop I'm sorry, but saying that I should not use debmake because it is buggy does not fix the bug and the bug should not be closed! Corrupting files in packages that I am building is very serious indeed, and if I didn't set the severity to important or greater, I proba

Need help to fix some debmake bugs.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- #12443: debmake: uupdate should support pristine sources I have never used uupdate, so if anyone volunteers, I will accept patches. Since most tarballs uncompress now into a single directory, it would ok if uupdate is changed so that it support *only* pristine

Re: I take debmake

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > With debmake, new functionality was added all the time, and was added into > the same debstd program, changing its behavior, and so different versions > could have widly differing results on the same package. > > With debstd, each ind

Re: I take debmake

Joey Hess wrote: > With debmake, new functionality was added all the time, and was added into > the same debstd program, changing its behavior, and so different versions > could have widly differing results on the same package. > > With debstd, each individual program has a well-d

Re: I take debmake

Christian Leutloff wrote: > > I don't believe that debhelper address one of Ian's main complaints at > > all. If I remeber correctly, that complaint was that when you use > > debmake (or debhelper), you end up with debian package source with > > non-determi

Re: I take debmake

Christian Leutloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > it's nice to have, but brings no advantages. If we change the > autoconfish thing we get the same different binaries as through > changing debhelper/debmake. It's IMHO only a different view but no > substantial change.

Re: I take debmake

Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't believe that debhelper address one of Ian's main complaints at > all. If I remeber correctly, that complaint was that when you use > debmake (or debhelper), you end up with debian package source with > non-determini

Re: I take debmake

Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What about using debhelper rather than having another packaging suite? IIRC > Ian said that debmake was "broken" in some respects and that Debian should > have a decent packaging tool - IMO debhelper fits that nicely

Re: I take debmake

Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 08:45:27PM +0100, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote: > > [snip] > > I have taken over the maintenance of debmake (on a temporary basis). > > Some time ago, Ian said he was going to write a replacement for i

Re: I take debmake

On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 08:45:27PM +0100, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote: [snip] > I have taken over the maintenance of debmake (on a temporary basis). > Some time ago, Ian said he was going to write a replacement for it, so I'm > just going to keep debmake frozen and will fix bug

I take debmake

reassign 13578 gzip reassign 14612 ash reassign 15005 ash stop Please, don't reassign packaging bugs to debmake, but open new bugs instead. debstd is not a shared library and therefore fixing it will not `magically' fix all packages using it in debian/rules. I have taken over the main

debian-non-US mirrors (was Re: debmake)

> I couldnt help but notice that there are no Canadian or even American > (South or Central) mirrors of debian with the non-us category. Actually, I do have one on my server (in Canada): ftp://ftp.jimpick.com/pub/mirrors/debian-non-US/ Canada doesn't have a NSA-like organization that has to pr

Re: debmake

> Apparently, > the case got taken to court and FreeBSD won against the gov't. I've heard no evidence of this (and would find it *very* unlikely.) In fact, the FreeBSD web pages still tell people to go to sites in South Africa, Brazil, or Finland for the "eBones" and "secure" packages... Even bet

Re: debmake

I couldnt help but notice that there are no Canadian or even American (South or Central) mirrors of debian with the non-us category. I have been offered a T1 connect, but dont have any hardware. If someone has a spare machine capable of running linux, I can provide a Canadian mirror. We dont ha

Re: problems with debmake

On Jun 22, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote > > Francesco, > > Did you add your userid to the sudo group? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> grep sudo /etc/group > sudo:*:27:edd > > Regards, Dirk > Yes, I made it. ciao Francesco Tapparo [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the w

Re: problems with debmake

Francesco, Did you add your userid to the sudo group? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> grep sudo /etc/group sudo:*:27:edd Regards, Dirk -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rosebud.sps.queensu.ca/~edd PGP KeyID 1024/6D7F08DD Boycott Internet Spam: http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ -- TO UNSU

Re: problems with debmake

On Jun 22, James Troup wrote > Francesco Tapparo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm working to packaging xdaliclock > > Not for the main distribution I hope (bo/Packages):- > > Package: xdaliclock > Version: 2.07-2 > Priority: optional > Section: x11 > Maintainer: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTE

problems with debmake

Hi, I'm working to packaging xdaliclock, but 've a problem with debmake: I will use it with sudo, and the I've set my /etc/sudoers to # Cmnd alias specification Cmnd_Alias DEBIAN_NEEDED=/usr/bin/debpkg,/usr/bin/build # User privilege specification rootALL=(ALL) ALL ce