Bill Allombert writes:
> The magic of dh comes by making assumption on the upstream build system.
> When these assumptions are correct then it is much less verbose than
> debhelper. When they are not correct the maintainer needs to override
> all incorrect guesses, in addition to writing the corr
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:26:47PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Hi. Almost two weeks ago [1] I started a discussion on whether we
> wanted to increase the strength of our recommendation of the dh
> sequencer from debhelper.
> This message is a consensus call summarizing my reading of the
> discu
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:06:13PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Ian Jackson dixit:
> >But our one un-shirkable responsibility is that of creating an
> >environment where *others* can contribute.
@Ian: I really like that quote that could define a modernised Debian.
> Oh, sorry, but, I disagre
I think such a GR would be a collosal waste of time. This issue is
not important enough. In particular, because the consensus is *not*
GR's can be man made a collosal waste of time.
Well, a GR can be quick and it would help to know where people stand
instead of having a few vocal people decid
❦ 4 juin 2019 15:47 +01, Ian Jackson :
> If not, how do you think the question you pose should be answered ?
> Since it is a question of tradeoffs, with no definite right or wrong
> answer, perhaps we should hold a GR ? What do you think the result of
> such a GR would be ?
>
> I think such a G
Ian Jackson dixit:
>There is QA work on the many packages with no specific maintainer;
Sure, in that case I’ll have to take it over or deal with it.
>there are cross-archive campaigns such as reproducible builds,
>architecture support, init system diversity, i18n/l10n, and so on.
These are done
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 02:27:03PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> No. A maintainer normally deals with their own packages, or with
> .dsc and debdiff, for NMU. (This is also an answer to the reply
> from wrar. Oh, jonas also said so, reloading the list index page.)
A maintainer normally deals with
Thorsten Glaser writes ("Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH"):
> No. A maintainer normally deals with their own packages, or with
> .dsc and debdiff, for NMU. (This is also an answer to the reply
> from wrar. Oh, jonas also said so, reloading the list index page.)
"
Sam Hartman dixit:
>He doesn't actually make that argument.
Hmm. Right, he doesn’t spell it out, but I got the impression.
Perhaps my reading was wrong.
>There are several reasons for not using dh we've already identified.
Sure… but…
>The fun factor is important.
… that.
>My reading of the com
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 04:10:38PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > I’d also throw in that monocultures are not good, and that people in
> > > general are happier when they aren’t forced into anything.
> > Yet people in general are also happier when they don't need to learn
> > all ways to do
> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes:
Jonas> Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2019-06-04 15:58:33)
>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:37:46PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> > I’d also throw in that monocultures are not good, and that
>> people in > general are happier when they aren’t
> "Thorsten" == Thorsten Glaser writes:
Thorsten> I would very much like to argue that not using dh is not a
Thorsten> bug, but Joey Hess, with his credentials ☺, did that
Thorsten> already (and much better than I could):
Thorsten> http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/80_percent/
He
Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2019-06-04 15:58:33)
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:37:46PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > I’d also throw in that monocultures are not good, and that people in
> > general are happier when they aren’t forced into anything.
> Yet people in general are also happier when
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:37:46PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> I’d also throw in that monocultures are not good, and that people
> in general are happier when they aren’t forced into anything.
Yet people in general are also happier when they don't need to learn all
ways to do something.
> Just
I would very much like to argue that not using dh is not a bug,
but Joey Hess, with his credentials ☺, did that already (and much
better than I could):
http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/80_percent/
tl;dr: dh started as 80% solution, it’s maybe an 96% solution now,
but it’s not intended as, and won’t b
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:14:33PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> ...
> > Often the most difficult part of packaging are the unique rules the
> > Debian ftp team requires for debian/copyright that are not required in
> > distributions with actual lawyers. That's a completely
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 08:42:26AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Does that paper you talk about point to _causes_ Debian packaging being
> more scary? Is it a) complexities related to hardening, cross-building,
> bootstrapping etc. or b) lack of a single¹ unified build framework, or
> c) t
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Firstly, I want to say that I think this is an awesome way to
Ian> conduct this discussion/decisionmaking/whatever. Thank you.
Thanks.
I'm really hoping it does end up working well and that we can train many
people to do it.
Ian> Sam Hartman
Firstly, I want to say that I think this is an awesome way to conduct
this discussion/decisionmaking/whatever. Thank you.
Sam Hartman writes ("Consensus Call: Do We Want to Require or Recommend DH;
comments by 2019-06-16"):
> Recommendation
> ==
>
> There are
Quoting Guillem Jover (2019-05-28 12:46:34)
> [dh] has proper documentation compared to cdbs which does not, which
> I think is the main reason I always found cdbs unappealing as you
> need to read its source code making its entire implementation its
> interface.
Another common technica
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 08:33:44 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
> recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred build
> system.
So, here's my take on this. I do use debhelper everywhere, I also use
dh mostly at work, and
Jonas Meurer writes:
> Depending on the software you packages, doing the initial packaging
> already requires a lot of knowledge about library handling, doc build
> systems, makefiles, the filesystem hierarchy standard, language-specific
> toolchains, etc.
> To properly build the package you hav
On May 27, 2019 11:50:38 AM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
>Scott> If we want to make not using dh except in certain situations
>Scott> a bug, it seems like something for a policy should kind of
>Scott> item. We have an existing process for updat
On 2019-05-27.12:27, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't have *links* either, but when introducing people
> into the world of Debian packaging recently, I always got the impression
> that they were heavily overwhelmed by the complexity of the Debian
> ecosystem.
As a recently promoted DM,
Hi Sam,
Sam Hartman:
>> "Jonas" == Jonas Meurer writes:
> Jonas> My opinion is that more uniformity in packaging practices
> Jonas> will bring a bit more simplicity as well. Therefore I applaud
> Jonas> Sam's initiative to require DH whereever it's sensible.
>
> Hi.
> I'm acting
> "Jonas" == Jonas Meurer writes:
Jonas> My opinion is that more uniformity in packaging practices
Jonas> will bring a bit more simplicity as well. Therefore I applaud
Jonas> Sam's initiative to require DH whereever it's sensible.
Hi.
I'm acting as a facilitator here not as a pr
On 5/27/19 6:29 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>>> We "uphold this reputation" by maintaining many packages, which is
>>> good.
>>
>> Do we? I am now using nix to get packages for stuff not in Debian. Our
>> package count is artificiall
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Scott> If we want to make not using dh except in certain situations
Scott> a bug, it seems like something for a policy should kind of
Scott> item. We have an existing process for updating policy, so
Scott> this should probably be kicked ove
Adrian Bunk:
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:34:39AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> ...
>> We have a reputation of having difficult
>> packaging practices. We uphold this reputation as long as we have so
>> many ways to do the same thing.
>
> [citation needed]
>
> I do honestly not know what stat
Quoting Andreas Tille (2019-05-27 06:29:05)
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > > We "uphold this reputation" by maintaining many packages, which is
> > > good.
> >
> > Do we? I am now using nix to get packages for stuff not in Debian.
> > Our package count is a
On May 25, 2019 5:26:47 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>Hi. Almost two weeks ago [1] I started a discussion on whether we
>wanted to increase the strength of our recommendation of the dh
>sequencer from debhelper.
>This message is a consensus call summarizing my reading of the
>discussion.
...
>
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > We "uphold this reputation" by maintaining many packages, which is
> > good.
>
> Do we? I am now using nix to get packages for stuff not in Debian. Our
> package count is artificially inflated by *-perl packages, golang-*
> packag
Adrian Bunk writes:
...
> Often the most difficult part of packaging are the unique rules the
> Debian ftp team requires for debian/copyright that are not required in
> distributions with actual lawyers. That's a completely separate topic.
That seems needlessly snide, and glosses over the fact
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:34:39AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>...
> We have a reputation of having difficult
> packaging practices. We uphold this reputation as long as we have so
> many ways to do the same thing.
[citation needed]
I do honestly not know what statements/comparisons from peop
❦ 26 mai 2019 12:04 +02, Jonas Smedegaard :
>> > * People who make changes across the archive such as enabling
>> > hardening, cross-building, bootstrapping, etc benefit
>> > significantly from more uniformity in packaging practices. The
>> > time they spend working on packages that use
Quoting Vincent Bernat (2019-05-26 11:34:39)
> ❦ 25 mai 2019 13:26 -04, Sam Hartman :
>
> > * People who make changes across the archive such as enabling
> > hardening, cross-building, bootstrapping, etc benefit
> > significantly from more uniformity in packaging practices. The
> > time
❦ 25 mai 2019 13:26 -04, Sam Hartman :
> * People who make changes across the archive such as enabling hardening,
> cross-building, bootstrapping, etc benefit significantly from more
> uniformity in packaging practices. The time they spend working on
> packages that use dh is significantly
Hi. Almost two weeks ago [1] I started a discussion on whether we
wanted to increase the strength of our recommendation of the dh
sequencer from debhelper.
This message is a consensus call summarizing my reading of the
discussion.
[1]
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tsla7fqjzyv@suc
Hello,
On Fri 24 May 2019 at 04:01PM +02, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14/05/19 at 14:30 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I think there's a fairly clear consensus emerging that it's worth having
>> things to check when making a build system conversion. Looking at
>> debdiff, ditherscope and re
Hi,
On 14/05/19 at 14:30 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think there's a fairly clear consensus emerging that it's worth having
> things to check when making a build system conversion. Looking at
> debdiff, ditherscope and reproducibility of the build all appear to be
> important things to consider
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:46:11AM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019, 03:41 Vincent Bernat wrote:.
> > Is there an example of a package where dh cannot be used? Making 96% of
> > packages simpler and 4% of packages moderately more complex seems to be
> > a good argument to uni
Reinhard challenged me offlist to look at whether boxbackup would
actually be more maintainable with dh than with its current use of
debhelper.
Here are things I noticed that I wouldn't have to think about with dh.
The package may be correct, but if I were trying to maintain the package
I'd nee
Reinhard Tartler writes ("Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH"):
> I looked yesterday at the boxbackup source package and contemplated
> converting it to dh from debhelper. I decided to not, because I'm
> having a hard time seeing a significant simplification
> po
> "Reinhard" == Reinhard Tartler writes:
Reinhard>I looked yesterday at the boxbackup source package and
Reinhard> contemplated converting it to dh from debhelper. I decided
Reinhard> to not, because I'm having a hard time seeing a
Reinhard> significant simplification pote
On Tue, May 21, 2019, 03:41 Vincent Bernat wrote:.
>
> Is there an example of a package where dh cannot be used? Making 96% of
> packages simpler and 4% of packages moderately more complex seems to be
> a good argument to uniformize our packaging practices towards dh.
> --
> Use the fundamental c
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:40:38AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 19 mai 2019 23:53 -04, Sam Hartman :
>
> > >> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
> > >> recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred
> > >> build system.
> >
> > Se
Quoting Vincent Bernat (2019-05-21 09:40:38)
> ❦ 19 mai 2019 23:53 -04, Sam Hartman :
>
> > >> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we
> > >> want to recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our
> > >> preferred build system.
> >
> > Sean> For those who haven't seen it
❦ 19 mai 2019 23:53 -04, Sam Hartman :
> >> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
> >> recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred
> >> build system.
>
> Sean> For those who haven't seen it, the original author of dh, Joey
> Sean>
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:22:16PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:09:14PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 15.05.2019, 11:31 +0200 schrieb Enrico Zini:
Or introduce a lintian check for not using dh. Then the maintainer
could override lintian and document t
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:31:46AM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
>...
> - if a package has had an inactive and unresponsive maintainer for a
>long time, it would indeed be a case for salvaging.
>
>I could however imagine someone having enough energy to dust off old
>packages in the archiv
> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes:
Sean> Hello,
Sean> On Mon 13 May 2019 at 08:33AM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
>> recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred
>> build system.
Sean> For
Hello,
On Mon 13 May 2019 at 08:33AM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:
> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
> recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred build
> system.
For those who haven't seen it, the original author of dh, Joey Hess, has
just publishe
Hi.
It looks like the discussion is simmering down.
My plan is to read over it all and come up with a consensus call
indicating areas where I believe we have consensus and what I think that
consensus is.
After I post that people will have an opportunity to comment on whether
I've judged conse
Hi Tollef,
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:54:50PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Andreas Tille
>
> > Can you give an example for a package that has a non-dh rules file
> > "working for years" that gives as a result a package with no lintian
> > warnings without changing this d/rules file?
>
> I
Hello,
On Tue 14 May 2019 at 12:30PM +01, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH"):
>> I agree with Scott's emphasis on the distinction between new and
>> existing packages. Perhaps application of the distinction could
]] Andreas Tille
> Can you give an example for a package that has a non-dh rules file
> "working for years" that gives as a result a package with no lintian
> warnings without changing this d/rules file?
If you're talking about the binary package, fortunes-bofh-excuses. It
has some lintian warn
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:28:59AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Prior art: Ubuntu already does this, gating the transition with a version
> of Debian's testing migration scripts that has been configured for a 0 day
> delay for all urgencies.
Yes. Colin Watson even had a talk about this in Vaumar
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 05:58:47PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Why would one want to switch that one to something else? The package,
basically, consists of a shell script and a man page only. The
minimalism of this package doesn't require an over-engineered dh
sequencer, does it?
I maintain on
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:27:30PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
I think conversion to dh should only be done when doing hostile
hijacking of packages, salvaging packages, adopting packages,
orphaning packages or team/maintainer uploads and only if the person
doing the conversion builds the package twi
Hi,
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:09:14PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 15.05.2019, 11:31 +0200 schrieb Enrico Zini:
> > I'd propose to recommend dh as the default build system, and document
> > in README.source if there are reasons to use something else.
> >
> > At that point, one
Enrico Zini writes ("Re: NMUs: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH"):
> I'd propose to recommend dh as the default build system, and document in
> README.source if there are reasons to use something else.
>
> At that point, one could look at README.source to see if ch
Am Mittwoch, den 15.05.2019, 11:31 +0200 schrieb Enrico Zini:
> I'd propose to recommend dh as the default build system, and document
> in README.source if there are reasons to use something else.
>
> At that point, one could look at README.source to see if changing
> build system would be an poss
On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 09:18:26 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> It uses dh_testroot, so it probably can't have Rules-Requires-Root: no,
> and needs to be built as (fake)root indefinitely - even though a package
> this simple can almost certainly be built correctly without fakeroot.
You've mention th
Quoting Enrico Zini (2019-05-15 11:31:46)
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:30:52PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> > How do we feel about people making build system conversions when
> > those conversion make it easier to fix some other bug that they are
> > fixing as part of an NMU?
> > That is, imagi
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:30:52PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> How do we feel about people making build system conversions when those
> conversion make it easier to fix some other bug that they are fixing as
> part of an NMU?
> That is, imagine that a package is mishandling the combination of
> sy
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:19:47 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> So maybe instead of creating unstable-proposed, stuff should move from
> buildd-unstable to unstable only after it successfully passed all kinds of
> automatable QA tests?
Prior art: Ubuntu already does this, gating the transition wi
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 17:58:47 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Now, I have another example, which is quite the opposite one of what you
> gave as example:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/openstack-team/debian/openstack-debian-images/blob/debian/stein/debian/rules
>
> Why would one want to switch tha
Quoting Scott Kitterman (2019-05-15 04:47:48)
>
>
> On May 15, 2019 1:13:52 AM UTC, Paul Wise wrote:
> >On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:31 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
> >
> >> How do we feel about people making build system conversions when
> >> those conversion make it easier to fix some other bug that th
On May 15, 2019 1:13:52 AM UTC, Paul Wise wrote:
>On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:31 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>> How do we feel about people making build system conversions when
>those
>> conversion make it easier to fix some other bug that they are fixing
>as
>> part of an NMU?
>
>If the maintainer i
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:31 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
> How do we feel about people making build system conversions when those
> conversion make it easier to fix some other bug that they are fixing as
> part of an NMU?
If the maintainer is MIA enough to not express an opinion when asked
if adding a
Simon McVittie schrieb:
> Packages using dh also make it a lot more straightforward to do
> archive-wide changes - similar to the benefit of using debhelper, but
> for changes that affect the "shape" of the build system rather than the
> details of individual steps. As a concrete example,
Or e.g.
On 5/13/19 11:31 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> - it's also simpler to understand.
>
> There, I don't agree. To fully understand how the dh sequencer works,
> one must first understand the 6 mandatory debian/rules targets, and how
> they are called.
You have to understand that in any case. Doesn
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:30:52PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>...
> How do we feel about people making build system conversions when those
> conversion make it easier to fix some other bug that they are fixing as
> part of an NMU?
What happens if the maintainer dislikes the change?
The maintainer
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 05:19:23PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Let me briefly hijack the discussion for a side note. ;)
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > NMUers should do debdiff - no matter what change was done. And yes, it
> > happened also to me in the pa
Hi Sam,
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:30:52PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> So, I think there is an emerging consensus against the idea of people
> NMUing a package simply to convert it to dh.
>
> First, I'd like to explicitly call for any last comments from people who would
> like to see us permit NM
On Tue, 14 May 2019 11:11:46 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:08:21PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 May 2019 22:22:32 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > In my experience, keeping existing packages at exotic build systems or
> > > ancient dh compat levels causes f
I think there's a fairly clear consensus emerging that it's worth having
things to check when making a build system conversion. Looking at
debdiff, ditherscope and reproducibility of the build all appear to be
important things to consider in such a case.
So, I think there is an emerging consens
Quoting Holger Levsen (2019-05-14 17:38:15)
> > Now one can turn this argument upside down. One can say: unstable is the QA
> > area. Britney prevents testing migration on autopkgtest/piuparts/ missing
> > binaries. In that case, we should simply stop filing such things in the BTS
> > and stop doin
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 05:19:23PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> The things you have to remember before doing an upload are insane.
> Having humans remember all this crap is not a reasonable expectation. I
> think our upload process is a bit like classical debhelper: You remember
> to do all the th
Let me briefly hijack the discussion for a side note. ;)
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> NMUers should do debdiff - no matter what change was done. And yes, it
> happened also to me in the past once or twice that I uploaded an empty
> package or package missing so
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 03:11:23PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> But my point is if you have a handwritten rules file it ends up so
> full of "obvious" boilerplate that it is difficult to see the trees
> for the wood, and there isn't anywhere obvious to put this kind of
> commentary. I think both
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH"):
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:30:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This provides an excellent
> > opportunity to leave a comment next to each weird thing explaining why
> > it's there.
> >
On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 12:54 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:38:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 11:07 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > Can you give an example for a package that has a non-dh rules file
> > > "working for years" that gives as a res
Le 14/05/2019 à 11:07, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> Can you give an example for a package that has a non-dh rules file
> "working for years" that gives as a result a package with no lintian
> warnings without changing this d/rules file?
Turns out I can't... I was thinking of some packages that I didn
Quoting Adrian Bunk (2019-05-14 13:47:02)
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:50:54PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 01:12:17PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:22:32PM +0300, Adrian B
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:30:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> One thing that I found really good about dh is that you only have to
> write code about things that are unusual.
indeed.
> This provides an excellent
> opportunity to leave a comment next to each weird thing explaining why
> it's th
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:50:54PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 01:12:17PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:22:32PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > > >things simple for team mates
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH"):
> I agree with Scott's emphasis on the distinction between new and
> existing packages. Perhaps application of the distinction could be
> extended: perhaps there are other things that we could require
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:38:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 11:07 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >
> > Can you give an example for a package that has a non-dh rules file
> > "working for years" that gives as a result a package with no lintian
> > warnings without changing
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 01:12:17PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:22:32PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > >things simple for team mates. I consider it a valid request to every
> > > > >single maintainer to
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:27:45AM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Quoting Adrian Bunk (2019-05-14 10:11:46)
> >
> > How well are you testing such conversions?
> > Based on work I've seen from you I'd guess your NMU would be better than
> > average. Unfortunately this is not generally true.
> >
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:22:32PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:33:44AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > >...
> > > Andreas Tille's explanation (quoted below) is typical of what I've heard
> > > in this area.
On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 11:07 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 04:22:49PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> > > Why Not Make this Change
> > >
> >
> > I would use dh for any new package and converting trivial packages is...
> > trivial. However converting
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:22:32PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:33:44AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >...
> > Andreas Tille's explanation (quoted below) is typical of what I've heard
> > in this area.
> >
> > >To come back
> > >to the question: I'm positively convinced tha
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 09:10:04AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:07:11PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > One can go further and say that people uploading broken packages are the
> > actual problem. After all, we have several classes of bugs caused by
> > people uploa
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:07:11PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> One can go further and say that people uploading broken packages are the
> actual problem. After all, we have several classes of bugs caused by
> people uploading .debs built in a broken env.
> Not sure if we can fix this and how
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:11:46AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> How well are you testing such conversions?
> Based on work I've seen from you I'd guess your NMU would be better than
> average. Unfortunately this is not generally true.
>
> Based on what enters the archive, "debdiff between old and
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 04:22:49PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> > Why Not Make this Change
> >
>
> I would use dh for any new package and converting trivial packages is...
> trivial. However converting a package with a more convoluted rules files
> will take humanpower.
Quoting Adrian Bunk (2019-05-14 10:11:46)
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:08:21PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 May 2019 22:22:32 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > > In my experience, keeping existing packages at exotic build systems or
> > > ancient dh compat levels causes fewer prob
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:08:21PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 22:22:32 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > In my experience, keeping existing packages at exotic build systems or
> > ancient dh compat levels causes fewer problems than people trying to
> > change that just for
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
