On 29/12/16 20:49, Ben Finney wrote: > Afif Elghraoui <a...@debian.org> writes: > >> Hi, Ben, > > Thanks for the feedback. One specific suggestion appears to already have > a bug report; I'm redirecting this sub-thread there. > >> على الثلاثاء 27 كانون الأول 2016 20:31، كتب Ben Finney: >>> The ‘dput-ng’ package is one alternative that is sometimes suggested >>> when people hit the limits in ‘dput’. I am not a user of ‘dput-ng’ >>> or other alternatives, so am also seeking feedback from people who >>> have informed positions on choosing one over the other. >> >> I always have to use dput-ng in order to be able to use the dcut dm >> […] command and grant DMs upload permissions. > > There is not ‘dm’ command is not mentioned at the upload queue Read Me > document <URL:ftp://ftp.upload.debian.org/pub/UploadQueue/README>. > > As best I can tell, that document is the specification for queue > manipulation commands. What am I missing?
Those are the queued commands. >> So as far as I'm concerned, if the dput package had a dcut that supports >> the dm subcommand, I'd be very happy. > > Where is the canonical specification of the commands accepted by ‘dak’? See gregor's link, or read the source: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/mirror/dak.git/tree/daklib/command.py > Should ‘dcut’ support only one of those specifications, or should it be > attempting to support the ‘…/UploadQueue/README’ commands as well? It should surely support the queued commands, so that you can remove a bad upload, reschedule a delayed upload, etc. Whether it's dput's job to support dak commands or that belongs to a different tool is up to you. But maybe you should support it just to stop losing users to dput-ng :P Cheers, Emilio
