/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl-base /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl/5.32
/usr/share/perl/5.32 /usr/local/lib/site_perl) at -e line 1.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at -e line 1.
The Debian package "libdigest-sha-perl" appears to be what I need:
2025-04-02 15:54:17 root@laalaa ~
# a
gt; # perl -e 'use Digest::SHA256'
> Can't locate Digest/SHA256.pm in @INC (you may need to install the
> The Debian package "libdigest-sha-perl" appears to be what I need:
> # apt-cache search SHA | grep 256 | grep -i perl
> libdigest-sha-perl - Perl extension f
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025, 6:38 AM wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 16:07:36 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
>
> FWIW, it seems that the author of the older package has died. :(
>
You know I can't help it, every time I see something like that I think of
Ian Murdock.
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 16:07:36 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> > But installing libdigest-sha-perl does not provide Digest::SHA256:
>
> They are different modules.
>
> https://metacpan.org/pod/Digest::SHA256
> https://metacpan.org/pod/Digest::SHA
>
> Digest::SHA256
On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 16:07:36 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> But installing libdigest-sha-perl does not provide Digest::SHA256:
They are different modules.
https://metacpan.org/pod/Digest::SHA256
https://metacpan.org/pod/Digest::SHA
Digest::SHA256 appears to be much, much older and probabl
On 4/2/25 16:18, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 16:07:36 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
But installing libdigest-sha-perl does not provide Digest::SHA256:
They are different modules.
https://metacpan.org/pod/Digest::SHA256
https://metacpan.org/pod/Digest::SHA
Digest::SHA256 ap
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 19:18:30 +0100
Computer Enthusiastic wrote:
> The web page used to search packages in Debian repositories at:
>
> https://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
>
> seems not to search for packages in the recently created
> "non-free-firmware" section for bookwork and sid.
Hello,
The web page used to search packages in Debian repositories at:
https://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
seems not to search for packages in the recently created
"non-free-firmware" section for bookwork and sid.
To whom this should be reported ?
Thanks.
ses dpkg-buildpackage, but gpb
controls the cleannes of the build area.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 14:54 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I'm surprised to see on
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/SimpleBackportCreation
>
> that the recommended command to build a Debian package is
> dpkg-build
On Vi, 22 ian 21, 14:00:42, Alex Mestiashvili wrote:
>
> On 1/22/21 1:53 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > I'm surprised to see on
> >
> >https://wiki.debian.org/SimpleBackportCreation
> >
> > that the recommended command to build a Debian package is
&
On 1/22/21 1:53 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
I'm surprised to see on
https://wiki.debian.org/SimpleBackportCreation
that the recommended command to build a Debian package is
dpkg-buildpackage. I had problems with it in the past as it
doesn't clean up the environment (and some pa
I'm surprised to see on
https://wiki.debian.org/SimpleBackportCreation
that the recommended command to build a Debian package is
dpkg-buildpackage. I had problems with it in the past as it
doesn't clean up the environment (and some packages are very
sensitive to some environment
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 8:17 PM John Crawley wrote:
> On 2019-10-19 11:24, Dan Hitt wrote:
> > There's a piece of software, lazpaint, that i would like to install on
> > my debian system.
> > The project dates from 2011, so i think it's pretty well established.
> > https://sourceforge.net/project
On 2019-10-19 11:24, Dan Hitt wrote:
There's a piece of software, lazpaint, that i would like to install on
my debian system.
The project dates from 2011, so i think it's pretty well established.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/lazpaint/
So i'm wondering if there's some way to invoke dpkg to ge
Dan Hitt wrote:
> There's a piece of software, lazpaint, that i would like to install on my
> debian system.
>
> As far as i can tell, it is not listed at packages.debian.org.
>
> It does have a *.deb file however.
>
> The project dates from 2011, so i think it's pretty well established.
>
> h
There's a piece of software, lazpaint, that i would like to install on my
debian system.
As far as i can tell, it is not listed at packages.debian.org.
It does have a *.deb file however.
The project dates from 2011, so i think it's pretty well established.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/lazpa
Hi Damon,
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 03:55:16PM +, Damon Bakker wrote:
> http://security-cdn.debian.org/dists/jessie/updates/main/binary-amd64/Packages
>
> is now missing. It is used in the pipelines of bitbucket and now it seems
> they're broken.
Can it not use the .gz or .bz2 versions?
http
Hi there,
I'd like to notify that
http://security-cdn.debian.org/dists/jessie/updates/main/binary-amd64/Packages
is now missing. It is used in the pipelines of bitbucket and now it seems
they're broken.
Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Noted, as this tip would have been very useful a few weeks ago :P
> Anyhow, I moved to "testing" so this is probably an issue solved for good.
Well, I hope it will not be the last one for you :)
Read the upgrade notes from Debian - saved me many troubles and I know
people h
Il 25/01/19 19:44, deloptes ha scritto:
# dpkg --get-selections before upgrade (is in the upgrade notes AFAIR > and
then need to reinstall packages that are kept back. when reinstalling
they pull the right dependencies. Indeed it is a bit of work ... like
20-30min, but upgrade is done every 3-4
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 01:20:29PM +0100, Andrea Borgia wrote:
TLDR it's complicated :)
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=203211
Or at least it was. That bug was closed in 2017. There is currently
nobody formally requesting the package nor formally indicating that it
is being w
Re this:
On Fri 25 Jan 2019 at 16:46:41 (+0100), Andrea Borgia wrote:
> I had TONS of problems upgrading from stable to testing due to libraries
> installed from d-m over time, in fact :/
> Third time was a charm, though: I had learnt about that and premptively
> removed everything that was not in
Andrea Borgia wrote:
> It's more like an issue with the libraries than the apps themselves: the
> apps in d-m are not in Debian and won't directly be affected. However,
> shared libraries in Debian might be upgraded to different versions pulled
> in from d-m and that's where the problems will come
Il giorno ven 25 gen 2019 alle ore 17:40 deloptes ha
scritto:
> David Wright wrote:
> > And to be fair, that has been spelled out in the Release Notes ever
> > since etch was released in 2007. Before that, the warning was less
> > explicit.
>
Of course, it was not my intention to blame anyone e
David Wright wrote:
> And to be fair, that has been spelled out in the Release Notes ever
> since etch was released in 2007. Before that, the warning was less
> explicit.
No idea what you are talking about, perhaps I am the only lucky one, or I am
not using the apps that caused your problems
reg
On Fri 25 Jan 2019 at 16:46:41 (+0100), Andrea Borgia wrote:
> I had TONS of problems upgrading from stable to testing due to libraries
> installed from d-m over time, in fact :/
> Third time was a charm, though: I had learnt about that and premptively
> removed everything that was not in the main
<
debianl...@videotron.ca> ha scritto:
>
>
> On 1/25/19 8:25 AM, deloptes wrote:
> > bapt x wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
> >> Debian package repository?
> >
Frank McCormick wrote:
> I was under the impression that it has been suggested in the past to not
> use packages from deb-multimedia.org as it causes other problems?
Might be, but for the past 10y I have encountered null. If you mess up with
your system for sure, but all works great on default st
On 1/25/19 8:25 AM, deloptes wrote:
bapt x wrote:
Hello,
Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
Debian package repository?
I see multimedia packages like VLC video player are present in the
official repository so it should not be a legal problem.
It would
e ore 13:09 bapt x ha
> scritto:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
>> Debian package repository?
Lack of Debian repository inclusion will be about things like lack of
enough manpower to maintain a consistent f
bapt x wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
> Debian package repository?
> I see multimedia packages like VLC video player are present in the
> official repository so it should not be a legal problem.
> It would be nice
TLDR it's complicated :)
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=203211
Il giorno ven 25 gen 2019 alle ore 13:09 bapt x ha
scritto:
> Hello,
>
> Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
> Debian package repository?
> I see multimed
Hello,
Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
Debian package repository?
I see multimedia packages like VLC video player are present in the official
repository so it should not be a legal problem.
It would be nice to have this package in the official repository
I am thinking about blogging, using the blogofile debian package. I am
following the tutorial in the blogofile documentation, using the
"simple_blog" example.
But the command "blogofile build" fails with the error "Cannot find
requested controller: blog".
Is thi
On 2018-01-25 23:03:50 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-01-25 15:30:02 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 02:56:17PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > To rebuild a Debian package, one can use:
> > >
> > > debuild -i -us -uc
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:59:17PM +0100, juh wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> is there a debian package for mu/mu4e 1.0 anywhere?
>
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=mu4e
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Hi all,
is there a debian package for mu/mu4e 1.0 anywhere?
TIA
juh
/rule file, which is a bit cleaner and make use of all new Debian
package create stuff.
Can anybody show me, what is the good way, to clone all this repos,
(g...@host.example.com:/ and later we switch to Gitlab) and how to
reset, after the first package was created ?
Nearly every howto show
On 2018-01-26 09:47:58 +, Curt wrote:
> On 2018-01-25, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2018-01-25 14:53:14 +, Curt wrote:
> >> On 2018-01-25, wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It seems that you are missing the '386 (or more precisely the '686)
> >> > executables. Perhaps you need the package dpkg-cross
On 2018-01-25, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-01-25 14:53:14 +, Curt wrote:
>> On 2018-01-25, wrote:
>> >
>> > It seems that you are missing the '386 (or more precisely the '686)
>> > executables. Perhaps you need the package dpkg-cross.
>> >
>> >> If I need binutils-i686-linux-gnu, should
On 2018-01-25 14:53:14 +, Curt wrote:
> On 2018-01-25, wrote:
> >
> > It seems that you are missing the '386 (or more precisely the '686)
> > executables. Perhaps you need the package dpkg-cross.
> >
> >> If I need binutils-i686-linux-gnu, shouldn't dpkg-buildpackage fail
> >> when checking t
On 2018-01-25 15:30:02 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 02:56:17PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > To rebuild a Debian package, one can use:
> >
> > debuild -i -us -uc -b
> >
> > But how to rebuild a Debian package for a foreign arch
On 2018-01-25, wrote:
>
> It seems that you are missing the '386 (or more precisely the '686)
> executables. Perhaps you need the package dpkg-cross.
>
>> If I need binutils-i686-linux-gnu, shouldn't dpkg-buildpackage fail
>> when checking the build dependencies?
>
> I'll leave that question to s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 02:56:17PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> To rebuild a Debian package, one can use:
>
> debuild -i -us -uc -b
>
> But how to rebuild a Debian package for a foreign architecture?
> In my case for i386 fro
To rebuild a Debian package, one can use:
debuild -i -us -uc -b
But how to rebuild a Debian package for a foreign architecture?
In my case for i386 from an amd64 machine. I've tried
debuild -i -us -uc -b -a i386
but the build fails at some point:
[...]
dh_strip -a
dh_strip: Compatib
> [...]
> Start here: https://wiki.debian.org/HelpDebian
Yes, i know my position is translation, thanks!!!
--
^고맙습니다 _地平天成_ 감사합니다_^))//
Stephen Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:40:53AM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 05:37:40AM -0400, Stephen Allen wrote:
>
>> > Sounds interesting, where should one start? I'm retired so have some
>> > time. 8-)
>>
>> Start here: https://wiki.debian.org/HelpDebian
>>
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:40:53AM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 05:37:40AM -0400, Stephen Allen wrote:
> > Sounds interesting, where should one start? I'm retired so have some
> > time. 8-)
>
> Start here: https://wiki.debian.org/HelpDebian
>
Thank-you
has changed in the new version from
upstream that might affect the intent of the patches.
Debian package maintainers need people who can help out, and tangible
measurable work like this is a good way to get involved.
Sounds interesting, where should one start? I'm retired so have some
ti
m that might affect the intent of the patches.
>
> Debian package maintainers need people who can help out, and tangible
> measurable work like this is a good way to get involved.
Sounds interesting, where should one start? I'm retired so have some
time. 8-)
Stephen Allen writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:00:03AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Especially when patches are needed, you shouldn't expect those
> > patches to apply to anything except the exact upstream version. The
> > work of a Debian package maintainer inclu
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:00:03AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Stephen Allen writes:
>
> > So, I downloaded the upstream source, downloaded the most recent
> > version of the Debian Package, so that I have a Debian source tree.
>
> Is the upstream source you downlo
Stephen Allen writes:
> So, I downloaded the upstream source, downloaded the most recent
> version of the Debian Package, so that I have a Debian source tree.
Is the upstream source you downloaded, different from the upstream source
(the ‘….orig.tar.gz’) to which the Debian packag
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:43:04AM -0400, Stephen Allen wrote:
> Then I ran 'dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc -j4' as root' [...]
Note: Debian packages do not require to be built by root, so it's better
that you don't. Using fakeroot is the default. Just install it
and it will be used automatically by dp
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:43:04AM -0400, Stephen Allen wrote:
> Hi, wanting to upgrade to a newer version of Liferea than what's in
> Testing.
>
> So, I downloaded the upstream source, downloaded the most recent version
> of the Debian Package, so that I have a Debian
Hi, wanting to upgrade to a newer version of Liferea than what's in
Testing.
So, I downloaded the upstream source, downloaded the most recent version
of the Debian Package, so that I have a Debian source tree. Next I
copied the Debian source tree directory from the existing Debian source
pa
>
>
> I doubt it's possible to make build paths containing spaces work correctly
> in the general case, even if the original poster does manage to hack
> it up this one time. My advice would be to stop attempting to use a
> directory with a space in its name as part of a build setup. It's doomed.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:57:13AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Based on the error, it looks as if the build process is attempting to
> run a command that uses the full path of the build directory, but does
> not quote that path; as a result, the space gets treated as a token
> separator.
Makefile
On 2016-09-19 at 11:22, Joshua Schaeffer wrote:
> Test...
>
> "Build Test" is the directory I downloaded everything into (a.k.a. it
> was the directory I was in when I ran apt-get source nginx-extras)
Based on the error, it looks as if the build process is attempting to
run a command that uses t
Test...
"Build Test" is the directory I downloaded everything into (a.k.a. it was
the directory I was in when I ran apt-get source nginx-extras)
jschaeffer@mutalisk:~/Build Test$ pwd
/home/jschaeffer/Build Test
jschaeffer@mutalisk:~/Build Test$ ls -l
total 2004
drwxr-xr-x 1 jschaeffer jschaeffer
Hello,
"cp: cannot stat ‘Test/nginx-1.6.2-5+deb8u2/auto’: No such file or
directory"
Test or Build Test ?
Greetings
Zoltán
Joshua Schaeffer ezt írta (2016. szeptember 19.,
hétfő):
> I'm trying to rebuild the nginx-extras package from Jessie and I'm
running into an error when I run debuild. I
I'm trying to rebuild the nginx-extras package from Jessie and I'm running into
an error when I run debuild. I want to add a module to Nginx. I've just been
following this to rebuild the package:
https://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/12/15/howto-to-rebuild-debian-packages/
Here is what I've done:
1
On 05/09/2016 02:55 PM, Denny Fuchs wrote:
> hi,
>
> I trying to create a own Debian package which mostly worked without Git.
> Now I moved the sources (only files) to a Git repo and using
> git-buildpackage. That was working too, until I wanted to add a file
> (example Apac
hi,
I trying to create a own Debian package which mostly worked without Git.
Now I moved the sources (only files) to a Git repo and using
git-buildpackage. That was working too, until I wanted to add a file
(example Apache config). Now it fails ... and I don't get it.
I red, that a Git c
>> What is so wrong with YUM? I actually like it better over apt-get or
>> aptitude...
> There's nothing wrong with YUM except that:
>
> a) It's dead upstream. They axed it in favor of DNF.
Yes, I did hear that but again, I like yum so stayed with it.
> b) It's dependency resolution algorit
Nate Bargmann writes:
> Your question is a non sequitur. The GPL does not require derivatives
> of a work to benefit the original author in any way. It only requires
> that the terms it spells out be honored by anyone exercising the
> rights to the covered work granted by it [GPL].
True, but so
On 02/22/2016 12:04 PM, Richard Zimmerman wrote:
How is Debian better off from Microsoft porting apt to Windows ?
Because they didn't select YUM. :) Ric
What is so wrong with YUM? I actually like it better over apt-get or
aptitude...
I wuz just being snarky. I used to work at Redhat and kno
* On 2016 22 Feb 10:42 -0600, Jean-Baptiste Thomas wrote:
> De: "Ric Moore"
> > and the GPL notice is included. I saw no mention to avoid the GPL in his
> > request for information. Ergo, as long as the GPL is honored, this plan
> > is actually a plus for Debian.
>
> How is Debian better off fr
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:04:42 +
Richard Zimmerman wrote:
> >> How is Debian better off from Microsoft porting apt to Windows ?
> >
> > Because they didn't select YUM. :) Ric
>
> What is so wrong with YUM? I actually like it better over apt-get or
> aptitude...
There's nothing wrong with YUM
>> How is Debian better off from Microsoft porting apt to Windows ?
>
> Because they didn't select YUM. :) Ric
What is so wrong with YUM? I actually like it better over apt-get or aptitude...
FYI, I'm a CentOS shop and a programmer. I used to run Debian full-time and
running Debian Jessie as I'm
On 02/22/2016 11:40 AM, Jean-Baptiste Thomas wrote:
De: "Ric Moore"
and the GPL notice is included. I saw no mention to avoid the GPL in his
request for information. Ergo, as long as the GPL is honored, this plan
is actually a plus for Debian.
How is Debian better off from Microsoft porting a
De: "Ric Moore"
> and the GPL notice is included. I saw no mention to avoid the GPL in his
> request for information. Ergo, as long as the GPL is honored, this plan
> is actually a plus for Debian.
How is Debian better off from Microsoft porting apt to Windows ?
On 02/20/2016 09:21 PM, Thiago wrote:
Hello,
Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
mailing list? I'm sorry, but you're not able to own GNU GPL to suck in
your Application Manager. Either you will be educated mentioning it and
respecting his copyright.
First, thanks
Em 22-02-2016 10:56, Jonathan Dowland escreveu:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:21:46PM -0300, Thiago wrote:
> Since this is a development query, debian-devel would be more appropriate than
> debian-user, and unless I'm mistaken, you should make it clear that you do not
> speak for Debian as you are n
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:21:46PM -0300, Thiago wrote:
> Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
> mailing list?
Since this is a development query, debian-devel would be more appropriate than
debian-user, and unless I'm mistaken, you should make it clear that you do not
Em 21-02-2016 23:49, John Hasler escreveu:
> I don't know what you mean by that. It's Free Software. They can do
> with it what the license terms permit and no more absent special
> permission from the copyright owner. The authors released it under the
> GPL and that's that. Debian, not owning
Thiego writes:
> I don't like the idea of Debian allowing the restrictions.
I don't know what you mean by that. It's Free Software. They can do
with it what the license terms permit and no more absent special
permission from the copyright owner. The authors released it under the
GPL and that's
So strongly to: new DRMs are NOT needed. Free Software is a permissive
license, the GPL is not the problem. Who is accustomed managing the
restrictions on computers & softwares that's really bad.
I don't like the idea of Debian allowing the restrictions. Free Software
is about ethics to the copyri
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 04:37:27PM -0500, Gary Dale wrote:
> I don't see why you object so strongly to the idea of porting apt-get to
> Windows. The idea may be a little crazy in that Windows programs don't
> install the same way or use the same libraries but there are lots of other
> programs that
I don't see why you object so strongly to the idea of porting apt-get to
Windows. The idea may be a little crazy in that Windows programs don't
install the same way or use the same libraries but there are lots of
other programs that run on Linux and Windows without provoking a hostile
response.
Hello,
Why did you send this message on Debian Apache and not in the main
mailing list? I'm sorry, but you're not able to own GNU GPL to suck in
your Application Manager. Either you will be educated mentioning it and
respecting his copyright.
I don't know why do you do it. Maybe you thought in ne
Hans wrote:
> some time ago, I asked, why some packages are in stable, NOT in
> testing, but in unstable.
>
> At this post, I promised, to ask again, when i find such a package.
>
> Now I found one: snort. You can find snort in stable, NOT in testing,
> but in unstable. Weired.
And I am miss
On 01/29/2015 09:26 PM, Hans wrote:
> H, it looks like I missed a lot! Maybe I should subscribe to a list,
> where
> I get such informations. What do you think is a good list, if I want to get
> informed, when packages are removed from the repo?
>
> Is debian-rele...@lists.debian.org the ri
> In addition to Ross's message, see this, which should make
> things clear:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2014/11/msg00406.html
>
> (Snort depends on daq).
>
> /regards
> -- Andreas Rönnquist
> mailingli...@gusnan.se
> gus...@gusnan.se
H, it looks like I missed a lot! Maybe I s
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:34:45 +0100,
Hans wrote:
>Dear maintainers,
>
>some time ago, I asked, why some packages are in stable, NOT in
>testing, but in unstable.
>
>At this post, I promised, to ask again, when i find such a package.
>
>Now I found one: snort. You can find snort in stable, NOT in te
> Hi Hans,
>
> Generally, new & updated packages are uploaded to unstable, and then
> automatically transition to testing once certain conditions are met.
>
> Testing is where each release is taken from. At certain points in the
> release cycle, packages are automatically removed from testing wh
On Thu 29 Jan 2015 at 20:34:45 +0100, Hans wrote:
> Dear maintainers,
>
> some time ago, I asked, why some packages are in stable, NOT in testing, but
> in unstable.
>
> At this post, I promised, to ask again, when i find such a package.
>
> Now I found one: snort. You can find snort in stable
On 01/29/2015 08:34 PM, Hans wrote:
> Dear maintainers,
>
> some time ago, I asked, why some packages are in stable, NOT in testing, but
> in unstable.
>
> At this post, I promised, to ask again, when i find such a package.
>
> Now I found one: snort. You can find snort in stable, NOT in testin
Dear maintainers,
some time ago, I asked, why some packages are in stable, NOT in testing, but
in unstable.
At this post, I promised, to ask again, when i find such a package.
Now I found one: snort. You can find snort in stable, NOT in testing, but in
unstable. Weired.
Best
Hans
--
I'm trying to compile pornview on testing/jessio. It compiled fine on
wheezy, making a nice Debian package. But when trying to compile it on
jessie I got complaints about libtool.
I suspect incompatible changes somewhere in the libtool/automake/
configure area.
I've tried rep
On Sb, 19 apr 14, 13:14:09, Andy wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Is there one or more 'skeletons' folder hierarchies, to create Debian
> packages? If yes, where can I download them?
>
> I am thinking something like a folder structure, with some configuration
> files and a Makefile, where I can just extra
Hi!
Maybe you want to look at the packages packaging-tutorial and
hello. You can also download any package and look at the
packaging with apt-get source .
It seems that dh-make can be what you seek also, it does not
configure everything for you though. You will need to configure
and tune the pack
What you ask for can't really be done. Upstream practices are too
unpredictable. Install debhelper, read the maintainer's guide and the
Debian policy manual, find an existing package that is similar to the
one you want to create, and modify the files from it. For most packages
debhelper and the
Hello all,
Is there one or more 'skeletons' folder hierarchies, to create Debian
packages? If yes, where can I download them?
I am thinking something like a folder structure, with some configuration
files and a Makefile, where I can just extract a TGZ archive in a
folder, edit the configurat
ipa, tipa-doc, xindy, xindy-rules, xmltex
Architecture: all
Description: My local installation of TeX Live 2013.
A full "vanilla" TeX Live 2013
http://tug.org/texlive/debian#vanilla
I used equivs-build to create the Debian package and installed it. However
when I open apt
Hello List,
On 05/05/13 07:07, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>> Bob Proulx wrote:
>>> Jerome BENOIT wrote:
Is there an easy way to get it from the .debian.tar.(gz|bz2|xz) ?
>>>
>>> $ tar xf emacs23-non-dfsg_23.4+1-1.debian.tar.gz --to-stdout
>>> debian/control | sed -n '/^Sectio
Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> > > Is there an easy way to get it from the .debian.tar.(gz|bz2|xz) ?
> >
> > $ tar xf emacs23-non-dfsg_23.4+1-1.debian.tar.gz --to-stdout
> > debian/control | sed -n '/^Section:/{s/.* //;s@/.*@@p;q}'
> > non-free
>
> You are
Hi Bob,
On 04/05/13 05:04, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Hi Jerome,
>
> Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>> I was looking for a ready to use tool to extract the components:
>> I guess I have to write my own stuff to do so.
>
> How about:
>
> $ tar --to-stdout -xf emacs23-non-dfsg_23.4+1-1.debian.tar.gz
> debian/c
On Sat, 04 May 2013 01:41:45 +0200
Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> given a package name, how can we know to which Debian component (man,
> contrib, non-free) it belongs ?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Jerome
>
>
aptitude -F 'Package: %p - Section: %s' search '^package_name$'
--
EMACS i
Hi Jerome,
Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> I was looking for a ready to use tool to extract the components:
> I guess I have to write my own stuff to do so.
How about:
$ tar --to-stdout -xf emacs23-non-dfsg_23.4+1-1.debian.tar.gz debian/control
| grep ^Section:
Section: non-free/editors
Section: n
1 - 100 of 1076 matches
Mail list logo
