Martin Wuertele writes:
> * Paul Wise [2011-11-29 03:33]:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> > Â - Custom patch commands, as already discussed. Â Yes, we should get rid
>> > of
>> > Â them, but that doesn't make it easy to convert them.
>> >
>> > Â - Conditional
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:04:31AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> > > > - Conditional application of patches. Some packages have patches
>> > > > that are
>> > > > only applied on a per-architecture or per-target-distribution basis.
>
>> > > All of these can be dealt w
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:04:31AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > - Conditional application of patches. Some packages have patches that
> > > > are
> > > > only applied on a per-architecture or per-target-distribution basis.
> > > All of these can be dealt with by rewriting the patch so th
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> > - Custom patch commands, as already discussed. Yes, we should get rid of
>> >them, but that doesn't make it easy to convert them.
>>
>> echo skip-patches >>debian/source/options
>>
>> And then in a pre-build target, d
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:08:39AM +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Roger Leigh [2011-11-29 10:04]:
>
> (...)
> > > > > - Conditional application of patches. Some packages have patches
> > > > > that are
> > > > > only applied on a per-architecture or per-target-distribution basis.
>
> (..
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > - Custom patch commands, as already discussed. Yes, we should get rid of
> >them, but that doesn't make it easy to convert them.
>
> echo skip-patches >>debian/source/options
>
> And then in a pre-build target, do the scripting magic, and call dh
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:56:45AM +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Paul Wise [2011-11-29 03:33]:
> > All of these can be dealt with by rewriting the patch so that it is
> > acceptable to upstream and applied and released by them.
>
> Care to explain how conditional per-target-distribution patch
Martin Wuertele writes:
> * Roger Leigh [2011-11-29 10:04]:
>
> (...)
>> > > > - Conditional application of patches. Some packages have patches
>> > > > that are
>> > > > only applied on a per-architecture or per-target-distribution basis.
>
> (...)
>
>> > > All of these can be dealt with b
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 06:44:04PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Besides it would be great that everyone uploading has a big reminder to
>> switch away from dpatch. Switching to v3 quilt should be easy.
>
> There are several features of dpatch that can't be trivially migrate
Alexander Wirt writes:
> The question is: who decides? I have a bunch of packages and an established
> workflow that served me well over the last years. I don't want to learn
> another *censored* system, just because someone said its the new standard or
> it is better.
Thing is, 3.0 (quilt) is a
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> Care to explain how conditional per-target-distribution patches should
> be bushed upstream? Think of patches requried for debian/sid,
> debian/squeeze-backports, ubuntu/Oneric Ocelot and ubuntu/Lucid Lynx
> when it comes to build dependenc
* Roger Leigh [2011-11-29 10:04]:
(...)
> > > > - Conditional application of patches. Some packages have patches that
> > > > are
> > > > only applied on a per-architecture or per-target-distribution basis.
(...)
> > > All of these can be dealt with by rewriting the patch so that it is
> >
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:56:45AM +0100, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Paul Wise [2011-11-29 03:33]:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > > - Custom patch commands, as already discussed. Yes, we should get rid of
> > > them, but that doesn't make it easy to conv
* Paul Wise [2011-11-29 03:33]:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > - Custom patch commands, as already discussed. Yes, we should get rid of
> > them, but that doesn't make it easy to convert them.
> >
> > - Conditional application of patches. Some packages have
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:41:43PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > We have a tradition in Debian on standardizing on interfaces, which is
> > good. But also standardizing on tools has value, because it reduces the
> > cost of diversity throughout the archive. If standardizing on tools is
> > consi
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> - Custom patch commands, as already discussed. Yes, we should get rid of
> them, but that doesn't make it easy to convert them.
>
> - Conditional application of patches. Some packages have patches that are
> only applied on a per-arc
On 11-11-28 at 04:53pm, Russ Allbery wrote:
> If, for example, Joey decided that debhelper was a bad idea and
> everyone should switch to CDBS, I'm sure we'd all listen closely to
> the reasoning, but I don't think his opinion would automatically win.
> :)
:-D
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaa
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 06:44:04PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Besides it would be great that everyone uploading has a big reminder to
> switch away from dpatch. Switching to v3 quilt should be easy.
There are several features of dpatch that can't be trivially migrated to v3
quilt.
- Custom patch
Michael Gilbert writes:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If someone else is willing to be the maintainer of the tool (as is the
>> case here), I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
> That isn't quite the case. The existing maintainer isn't stepping down,
> he's
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>
>>> The question is: who decides? I have a bunch of packages and an
>>> established workflow that served me well over the last years. I don't
>>> want to learn
Michael Gilbert writes:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>> The question is: who decides? I have a bunch of packages and an
>> established workflow that served me well over the last years. I don't
>> want to learn another *censored* system, just because someone said its
>>
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> The question is: who decides? I have a bunch of packages and an established
> workflow that served me well over the last years. I don't want to learn
> another *censored* system, just because someone said its the new standard or
> it is bette
Stefano Zacchiroli schrieb am Monday, den 28. November 2011:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:54:57PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > Its simple and things like dpatch-edit-patch are just great. I now use
> > dpatch
> > for round 8 years and it worked every time. I don't see any reason to move
> > a
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:54:57PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Its simple and things like dpatch-edit-patch are just great. I now use dpatch
> for round 8 years and it worked every time. I don't see any reason to move
> away.
>
> And I still like the "never touch a running system" approach. If
Goswin von Brederlow schrieb am Monday, den 28. November 2011:
> Alexander Wirt writes:
>
> > Jon Dowland schrieb am Montag, den 28. November 2011:
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:54:57PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> >> > And I still like the "never touch a running system" approach. If dpa
Alexander Wirt writes:
> Jon Dowland schrieb am Montag, den 28. November 2011:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:54:57PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>> > And I still like the "never touch a running system" approach. If dpatch
>> > works
>> > without problems, why deprecate it?
>>
>> One reason i
Jon Dowland schrieb am Montag, den 28. November 2011:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:54:57PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > And I still like the "never touch a running system" approach. If dpatch
> > works
> > without problems, why deprecate it?
>
> One reason is that the surface area of Debian
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:54:57PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> And I still like the "never touch a running system" approach. If dpatch works
> without problems, why deprecate it?
One reason is that the surface area of Debian development tools is too large
and daunting for newcomers. When altern
Hi,
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> And the problem that debians dpatchs is full of evil patches that makes it
> just incompatible to other quilts on non-debian systems.
I assume you meant s/dpatchs/quilt/.
Can you back up that assertion? It's true that quilt has a lot of patches
a
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 01:44:21PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> that's exactly the problem I'm facing for a migration of dpatch to quilt
> I'm working on. There is no possible solution to execute any code/rules
> target before a 3.0 source package applies patches, right?
Good! I want to be able to i
Arno Töll writes ("Re: Lintian ERROR saying dpatch is obsolete"):
> On the other hand, if dpkg would support a rules target to be executed
> before applying patches, that would be a great improvement. Or,
> alternatively most patches-which-are-scripts could be avoided if quilt
&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Raphaël,
On 28.11.2011 11:55, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>> Since there is no proper alternative (no quilt is not) I will continue to use
>> dpatch for all of my packages.
>
> Is it only the fact that dpat
Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Montag, den 28. November 2011:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > Since there is no proper alternative (no quilt is not) I will continue to
> > use
> > dpatch for all of my packages.
>
> Is it only the fact that dpatch "patches" can be scripts that justi
Gergely Nagy schrieb am Montag, den 28. November 2011:
> Alexander Wirt writes:
>
> >> > Recently [1], dpatch's maintainer uploaded a new version indicating
> >> > that dpatch is now deprecated. Following that, he filed a bug [2] so
> >> > that lintian might warn that dpatch's makefile has been
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Since there is no proper alternative (no quilt is not) I will continue to use
> dpatch for all of my packages.
Is it only the fact that dpatch "patches" can be scripts that justify this
assertion?
If not, I would be interested to learn why quilt is no
Alexander Wirt writes:
>> > Recently [1], dpatch's maintainer uploaded a new version indicating
>> > that dpatch is now deprecated. Following that, he filed a bug [2] so
>> > that lintian might warn that dpatch's makefile has been deprecated
>> > since 2003, and that dpatch itself is now depreca
Gergely Nagy schrieb am Sonntag, den 27. November 2011:
Hi,
> > Recently [1], dpatch's maintainer uploaded a new version indicating
> > that dpatch is now deprecated. Following that, he filed a bug [2] so
> > that lintian might warn that dpatch's makefile has been deprecated
> > since 2003, and
Margarita Manterola writes:
> Recently [1], dpatch's maintainer uploaded a new version indicating
> that dpatch is now deprecated. Following that, he filed a bug [2] so
> that lintian might warn that dpatch's makefile has been deprecated
> since 2003, and that dpatch itself is now deprecated. H
On 11/27/2011 06:22 PM, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Hey,
Hi Marga
> Recently [1], dpatch's maintainer uploaded a new version indicating
> that dpatch is now deprecated. Following that, he filed a bug [2] so
> that lintian might warn that dpatch's makefile has been deprecated
> since 2003, and t
Hey,
Recently [1], dpatch's maintainer uploaded a new version indicating
that dpatch is now deprecated. Following that, he filed a bug [2] so
that lintian might warn that dpatch's makefile has been deprecated
since 2003, and that dpatch itself is now deprecated. However, he
also stated that he p
40 matches
Mail list logo
