On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:39:32PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> Another thing is that people have the old habit to see the source
> package be the preferred form of modification for a Debian package.
erm ...
Regards,
Paddy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 05:47:13PM +1100, martin f krafft wrote:
> As Debian moves more and more into developing countries, where
> Internet access is not (yet) ubiquitous, this seems like a step
> backwards. Ideally, the history should be on the source DVDs.
Nope, I disagree. Well, I agree that i
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 08:38:14AM +, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.27.0939 +1100]:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 06:00:02PM +, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:51:05AM
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 08:21:44AM +, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.27.0505 +1100]:
> > Seconded. I'd add, that in fact we should standardize on quilt
> > as an exchange format for patches, because it's simple, and that
> > there are pow
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, martin f krafft wrote:
PS: this figure is 80% correct but will surely be questioned by 70%
of the people. The likelihood that someone replies to this message
is 50%.
I just take the mere chance to do this. ;-)
The likelihood that someone flames is currently 12.6%.
Is th
I demand that I definitely did write...
[snip]
> Whatever DSCM is used, it needs history truncation. This rules out
> mercurial (at present? certainly 0.9.5); I tarred up the bits needed to
> recreate a checked-out repository of xine-lib - 8.6MB orig.tar.gz
> (1.1.9.1), 28MB hg.tar.gz (tip, but th
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:18:26PM +1100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.27.0334 +1100]:
> > External patch systems are not ideal by any means, but they do
> > clearly address these issues as well as I could ask for. It's
> > trivial to update the pa
also sprach Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.25.1959 +1100]:
> Oh and don't try to ask for complete uniformity in packaging, there
> are 1000 DDs, 10 times as many packages, different needs (you don't
> package a perl extension like you package mozilla or gcc or a java
> library) henc
also sprach Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.27.0939 +1100]:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 06:00:02PM +, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:51:05AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > On 25/01/08 at 08:01 +, Steve L
also sprach Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.28.1859 +1100]:
> The only problem that me and I guess at least 50% of DDs have with
> debcheckout(1) and debcommit(1) is that they did not know them before
> this thread. Feel free to call me ignorant, but I was not aware of
> these tools (an
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.27.0133 +1100]:
> include this sort of cruft. If patch systems must stay around,
> I would be happy if somebody could design and write a standard
> wrapper that could figure out the differences automatically, and
> get it into devscripts.
I thi
also sprach Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.25.2008 +1100]:
> I’d be glad if we could standardize on quilt.
Standardisation is not something you do, IMHO, it's something that
emerges. So if you want quilt to become the standard, test it,
experiment it, smooth out the rough edges, tea
also sprach Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.26.1105 +1100]:
> So no need for .git.tar.gz, then - just carry on shipping
> .orig.tar.gz and .diff.gz, and use debcheckout if you need the
> history.
As Debian moves more and more into developing countries, where
Internet access is not (yet) u
also sprach David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.27.0334 +1100]:
> External patch systems are not ideal by any means, but they do
> clearly address these issues as well as I could ask for. It's
> trivial to update the patches, just go one by one through them.
> You can trivially see the patch
also sprach Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.27.0505 +1100]:
> Seconded. I'd add, that in fact we should standardize on quilt
> as an exchange format for patches, because it's simple, and that
> there are powerful tools to handle them.
Except those patches contain no VCS-specific
also sprach Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.28.1613 +1100]:
> From: Author O' The Patch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Detailed patch description
> Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This is at the beginning of every single quilt patch, and because of
> this, we can easily imp
also sprach Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.01.26.0205 +1100]:
> We have managed to get almost complete uniformity of the binary
> packages produced. And imho, it's one of the things that makes
> Debian great. In this background it's kinda sad that our source
> packaging such a mess with so m
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
IOW in order to perform a NMU, you just need to know how to:
* checkout sources, debcheckout(1) knows that ;
* commit your changes, debcommit(1) knows that almost, mr(1) could
also probably be of help ;
The only problem that me and I guess at l
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
The competing vcs situation has its problems, but no matter what vcs is
used for a package, you can check out the source to the package using
apt-get source. This allows examination and modification of the source
to any package, without needing to know the v
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:39:32PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I'm less and less sure that a git-based format is a brilliant idea. I
> like git more than a lot, but it's a poor idea to base source packages
> on them. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able one day to upload a
> signed git
Le Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 01:37:25PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:23:45AM +, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > And in taht sense, wig&pen that allow you to put multiple diffs rather
> > > than a single .diff.gz with your o
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:25:49PM +0100, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> On fredagen den 25 januari 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:55:02AM +, Jon Dowland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:13:37AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > The only sad thin
On fredagen den 25 januari 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:55:02AM +, Jon Dowland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:13:37AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > The only sad thing is that quilt only deals with patches (i.e. diffs),
> > > whereas dpatch
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:23:45AM +, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > And in taht sense, wig&pen that allow you to put multiple diffs rather
> > than a single .diff.gz with your orig tarball is quite enough.
> > debian/control is already here for the rest
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> And in taht sense, wig&pen that allow you to put multiple diffs rather
> than a single .diff.gz with your orig tarball is quite enough.
> debian/control is already here for the rest, and we just need some more
> Vcs-* like headers, or some new resour
On sam, 2008-01-26 at 23:39 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I'm not sure we aren't mixing two different issues. There is the
> exchange format used for source packages, and there is the question of
> where DDs put all their work to generate those source packages.
>
> I'm less and less sure tha
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 06:00:02PM +, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:51:05AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > On 25/01/08 at 08:01 +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > As a second runner up, quilt is ok by me. :)
> > >
> > >
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Michael Banck wrote:
And there I thought we'd use whatever we like until wig&pen lands, which
will have native patch support.
What's the status of that? Is my assumption bad?
Not completely, I'm following the discussion closely
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:34:27PM +, David Nusinow wrote:
> If we can't figure out a good and clean way to keep a large stack of
> long-lived patches in the vcs then I firmly believe we should standardize
> on quilt.
Seconded. I'd add, that in fact we should standardize on quilt as an
excha
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 05:16:39PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:07:27PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:33:40PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Yes. Merge is liable to be trickier since there are a couple of
> > > different possible sets of s
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:07:27PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:33:40PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Yes. Merge is liable to be trickier since there are a couple of
> > different possible sets of semantics, but that's much more likely to be
> > an operation performed
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:26:04AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> I think:
>>
>>http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/a_problem_with_tools/
>>
>> is a big one that deserves attention. It's been a low-level grumble for
>> quite some time in various places, but it's getting louder. It's a
>> diff
On Sat Jan 26 14:33, Colin Watson wrote:
> One major reason many people object to yada is that it's very easy to
> think you've fixed something but then discover that the packaging system
> in use reverts or otherwise breaks your change, because the files you're
> expected to edit are different fro
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:07:27PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:33:40PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:59:00AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > I don't think there is One True Solution, though there are probably
> > > ways to allow _any_
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:33:40PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:59:00AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > I don't think there is One True Solution, though there are probably
> > ways to allow _any_ of the $DSCM to be used (and let's svn rot *cough*)
> > and have some De
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:59:00AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> For one, I'm not sure the "situation" is that horrible. Second, I
> believe joeyh's proposal to be able to use some DSCM features to replace
> the old diff.gz is an excellent proposal, OTOH, you will have a lot of
> people complai
Le Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:51:40PM -0500, Joey Hess a écrit :
>
> Unless what you get when you run apt-get source is *not* the source that
> is in the end used to build the package, which is instead squirrled away
> in some arbitrary patch format somewhere under debian/. In this case,
> unlike in
I demand that Pierre Habouzit may or may not have written...
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:26:04AM +, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> What would you suggest to enhance the situation?
> For one, I'm not sure the "situation" is that horrible. Second, I believe
> joeyh's proposal to be able to use some D
On Fri January 25 2008 3:47:36 am sean finney wrote:
> hiya,
>
> On Friday 25 January 2008 09:50:56 am Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I would be absolutely unhappy about this. On one hand it is just a
> > waste of resources to clone upstream source on the other hand handling a
> > set of (documented!!)
Quoting Lucas Nussbaum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >> I made some stats (see [1]). 7.8% of our packages use quilt, while 14.4%
> >> use dpatch. It would be great to document in some place (devref?) why
> >> quilt should be used instead of dpatch, because I don't think it's
> >> obvious for everybody :)
Andreas Tille wrote:
> What would you suggest to enhance the situation?
Each maintainer may be familiar with his pet patch system, but for
archive wide work I agree the current approach is a mess and makes
security updates painful. Since it's unlikely to change anytime soon,
each source packages,
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:51:05AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 25/01/08 at 08:01 +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > As a second runner up, quilt is ok by me. :)
> >
> > I made some stats (see [1]). 7.8% of our packages use quilt, while 14.4%
> >
Andreas Tille wrote:
> If you ask me personally the situation with zillions of competing
> VSC systems is even worse than the hand full of tools to build
> Debian packages. I personally refuse to switch VCS every six month
> because there is a newer and even better one if you trust the one
> or ot
FWIW, I'm very disappointed in this thread so far -- everyone in it
seems to be missing between 50 and 90% of the point of my blog post.
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Oh and don't try to ask for complete uniformity in packaging, there
> are 1000 DDs, 10 times as many packages, different needs (you do
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 11:14:24AM +0100, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Friday 25 January 2008 11:08:13 am Mike Hommey wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:55:02AM +, Jon Dowland
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > Does anyone know how common it is fo
Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:13:37AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> The only sad thing is that quilt only deals with patches (i.e. diffs),
>> whereas dpatch can do scripts, too. Anyways, I now prefer not using
>> dpatch of quilt.
>
> Does anyone know how common it is for this add
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:59:00AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Oh and don't try to ask for complete uniformity in packaging, there
> are 1000 DDs, 10 times as many packages
We have managed to get almost complete uniformity of the binary
packages produced. And imho, it's one of the things tha
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:14:01PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Well, I do, but if I want to provide a fix for package XY I would have
> to install the perfered VCS of maintainer of XY and learn how to uncover
> the comments of a patch (including its history).
Nope, since nobody is stating that t
On 25/01/08 at 12:16 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
>> I made some stats (see [1]). 7.8% of our packages use quilt, while 14.4%
>> use dpatch. It would be great to document in some place (devref?) why
>> quilt should be used instead of dpatch, because I d
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I made some stats (see [1]). 7.8% of our packages use quilt, while 14.4%
use dpatch. It would be great to document in some place (devref?) why
quilt should be used instead of dpatch, because I don't think it's
obvious for everybody :)
Yes, please do s
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
a set of (documented!!) patches seems much more clearly for my taste.
You comment patches in the commit message, don't you ?
Well, I do, but if I want to provide a fix for package XY I would have
to install the perfered VCS of maintainer of XY and
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
For one, I'm not sure the "situation" is that horrible. Second, I
believe joeyh's proposal to be able to use some DSCM features to replace
the old diff.gz is an excellent proposal, OTOH, you will have a lot of
people complaining about having to use gi
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 11:14:24AM +0100, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 25 January 2008 11:08:13 am Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:55:02AM +, Jon Dowland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Does anyone know how common it is for this additional functionali
On 25/01/08 at 08:01 +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As a second runner up, quilt is ok by me. :)
I made some stats (see [1]). 7.8% of our packages use quilt, while 14.4%
use dpatch. It would be great to document in some place (devref?) why
quilt should be used instead of dpatch, because I don't t
hiya,
On Friday 25 January 2008 09:50:56 am Andreas Tille wrote:
> I would be absolutely unhappy about this. On one hand it is just a waste
> of resources to clone upstream source on the other hand handling a set of
> (documented!!) patches seems much more clearly for my taste.
"inconvenient bec
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:51:05AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 25/01/08 at 08:01 +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > As a second runner up, quilt is ok by me. :)
>
> I made some stats (see [1]). 7.8% of our packages use quilt, while 14.4%
> use dpatch. It would be great to document in some pla
On Friday 25 January 2008 11:08:13 am Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:55:02AM +, Jon Dowland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does anyone know how common it is for this additional functionality to
> > be used in packages in the archive?
>
> I do use it for config.guess and config
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:55:02AM +, Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:13:37AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > The only sad thing is that quilt only deals with patches (i.e. diffs),
> > whereas dpatch can do scripts, too. Anyways, I now prefer not using
> > dpat
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:13:37AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> The only sad thing is that quilt only deals with patches (i.e. diffs),
> whereas dpatch can do scripts, too. Anyways, I now prefer not using
> dpatch of quilt.
Does anyone know how common it is for this additional functionality to
be u
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:59:00AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> For one, I'm not sure the "situation" is that horrible. Second, I
> believe joeyh's proposal to be able to use some DSCM features to replace
> the old diff.gz is an excellent proposal
Full ack!
> OTOH, you will have a lot of peo
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:50:56AM +, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > - Store all of the source, upstream and Debian, in the same VCS
> > (better if upstream uses the same, but if it has to be a clone of
> > upstream then so be it)
>
> I would be ab
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:08:29AM +0100, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Le vendredi 25 janvier 2008 à 09:50 +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> > > As a second runner up, quilt is ok by me. :)
> >
> > For historical reasons I use dpatch but I'm not really happy with this.
> > I would
Le vendredi 25 janvier 2008 à 09:50 +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> > As a second runner up, quilt is ok by me. :)
>
> For historical reasons I use dpatch but I'm not really happy with this.
> I would gladly adopt any other patch system if it would be declared as
> kind of standard.
I’d be glad
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 07:26:04AM +, Andreas Tille wrote:
> What would you suggest to enhance the situation?
For one, I'm not sure the "situation" is that horrible. Second, I
believe joeyh's proposal to be able to use some DSCM features to replace
the old diff.gz is an excellent proposal, O
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
- Store all of the source, upstream and Debian, in the same VCS (better if
upstream uses the same, but if it has to be a clone of upstream then so be
it)
I would be absolutely unhappy about this. On one hand it is just a waste of
resources to clone
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:26:04AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think:
>>http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/a_problem_with_tools/
>> is a big one that deserves attention. It's been a low-level grumble for
>> quite some time in various places,
[changed mailing list from debian-project to debian-devel because I'd regard
it a debian-devel topic]
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think:
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/a_problem_with_tools/
is a big one that deserves attention. It's been a low-level grumble for
quite
67 matches
Mail list logo
