Re: RFS: turbotinymce
Vincent Bernat wrote: > > You may want to add Homepage field to source stanza of debian/control > and a debian/watch file (this will help the use of svn-buildpackage > too). > > Moreover, there should be a better way to use Debian TinyMCE than just > removing almost everything with a very large patch. You may consider > adding some "rm" in debian/rules. Done. Also moved from cdbs to dh7. New version uploaded to mentors. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debhelper 7 and python-central
Ben Finney wrote: > Early in the 7.0.x series, debhelper gained the ability to detect a > Python package and run 'dh_pysupport' in the 'install' sequence, > allowing a single-line 'dh install' to perform all the tasks needed in > an 'install' target. However, it currently seems to lack corresponding > support for 'python-central'. I'm sure this is a FAQ, but I haven't been able to find a good write up anywhere. The policy says use either, and the mailing list archives I read from 2006 seemed to indicate that people found one or the other to be deficient. 1. What are the real differences between these two? 2. Why, as a packager, would I choose one over the other? 3. Is there a valid reason to have both of them be acceptable if they both do the same job? Thanks, Monty -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: numpy 1.2.1, switching to git?
/me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well bzr... (note: I use bzr for all of my other projects, so I have a vested interest) However... _anything_ is an improvement over svn. Monty Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Ondrej Certik, 2008-12-08] >> P.S. bzed, POX, isn't it time to move our packaging to git? > > I was planing it for a long time, but never found time to actually do it. > > If you volunteer to do this, please send a message to PAPT mailing list, > wait a week and if no one will complain, go ahead and convert the > repository. Then we'll test it for a bit and if it will work fine, we'll > do the same with DPMT repo (which has more developers so we'll use > "hey, it's working perfectly fine in PAPT" argument ;). > > > BTW, I'm Piotr or Piotrek outside IRC ;-P -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: numpy 1.2.1, switching to git?
Ondrej Certik wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: >> /me whinges that switching to bzr for packaging in general would be a >> much nicer thing overall, since then ubuntu downstream is pretty well >> bzr... >> >> (note: I use bzr for all of my other projects, so I have a vested interest) >> >> However... _anything_ is an improvement over svn. > > Matthias also wrote me offlist, that he either prefers to stay in svn, > or use bzr, but not git (if I understood well). git seems to be fairly polarizing - I'm not sure why. :) > The problem with bzr is that it seems to me it is mainly used in > Ubuntu, but that's about it. Also compare for example the number of > packages in the respective vcs: > > http://bzr.debian.org/ > http://git.debian.org/ > http://hg.debian.org/ > > (git seems to me like a clear winner) > > Well, I don't mind either, I know both hg and git quite well and bzr a > little. But I prefer to just use just one vcs for everything, and that > is git in my case, as I think it has the biggest momentum now. Seems like a decent enough rationale... I'm pretty-much fine with any of them. This will give me a chance to learn a bit about git. Monty -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: numpy 1.2.1, switching to git?
Steve Langasek wrote: > >> (that's just my subjective opinion, please don't start a flame war now) > > It's a rather strongly worded opinion; if you want to avoid flame wars, you > might find it helpful to bring specific criticisms to the table instead of > just declaring a solution "ugly". :) ++ > Slinking back into the shadows of debian-python, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
plywood package upload?
Hi guys, I've been told that I should ask here for help with sponsoring of debian packages that are in python. If there's anyone who would like to upload this for me, I'd appreciate it. It's mainly just to close an NMU bug. The relevant files can be found at http://debian.inaugust.com plywood (0.5.9) unstable; urgency=low . * Integrated changes from NMU. (closes: #213112) * Made depends stricter. Also, if anyone is interested in being an advocate, I'd appreciate it. I seem to have fallen into a black hole of being ignored on debian-mentors. Thanks! Monty
Re: plywood package upload?
On Thursday, Oct 30, 2003, at 20:59 US/Central, Graham Wilson wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 05:46:12PM -0600, Monty Taylor wrote: I've been told that I should ask here for help with sponsoring of debian packages that are in python. I thought the policy was never to ask on package specific lists for help with sponsoring; I could be mistaken though. I thought the same thing. I would image that debian-mentors would be the more appropriate place. Anybody know for sure? In any case, thanks for responding. If there's anyone who would like to upload this for me, I'd appreciate it. It's mainly just to close an NMU bug. You really don't need a new upload just to close an NMU bug. You can probably wait until you have some other bugs fixed (or new features) before uploading. Ok then, I'll just let it hang for now. I didn't want someone to think I was slack on the job -- not a very good way to get in to the club. :) Thanks again. Monty
