Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:47:04AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>>
>> When someone (e.g. an NMUer) does edit an upstream file and builds the
>> package then the source do not contain those changes while the binary
>> will. That is clearly going to cause no end
Le Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:47:04AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>
> When someone (e.g. an NMUer) does edit an upstream file and builds the
> package then the source do not contain those changes while the binary
> will. That is clearly going to cause no end of pains.
>
> Building the sour
Russ Allbery writes:
> Brian May writes:
>
>> Just a general observation, it is rather painful to have to set and
>> maintian QUILT_PATCHES by hand everytime I want to modify a patch. There
>> have been a number of times now I have accidentally created the patch in
>> the wrong directory, which
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:17:17AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>>
>> I can add a new option "--no-debian-patch" that would refuse to create the
>> automatic quilt patch debian-changes- and make it fail instead if
>> there are upstream changes.
>
> Hi Raphaël,
>
> ev
Brian May writes:
> Just a general observation, it is rather painful to have to set and
> maintian QUILT_PATCHES by hand everytime I want to modify a patch. There
> have been a number of times now I have accidentally created the patch in
> the wrong directory, which can be very confusing (mess tw
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:12:58PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Am I doing something wrong?
Just a general observation, it is rather painful to have to set and maintian
QUILT_PATCHES by hand everytime I want to modify a patch. There have been a
number of times now I have accidentally created the patc
Le Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Obviously, we don't want to have many formats in the archive and it's best
> if "3.0 (quilt)" is flexible enough so that we don't have to invent many
> other formats.
Le Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 02:49:39PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> But the package is unpacked before it can be patched. The patches
> themselves are in debian/patches: when they become available,
> debian/source/options and debian/source/format are available as
> well.
Right, but unpacking should be under control of
Le 27 nov. 09 à 14:28, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
That would be a useful compromise. How about the second half, which
is to not
patch anything during the unpacking of the package? Maybe this
could be
combined in a single ‘no-patch’ option, or an ali
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> That would be a useful compromise. How about the second half, which is to not
> patch anything during the unpacking of the package? Maybe this could be
> combined in a single ‘no-patch’ option, or an alias like ’3.0 (simple)’?
There's already --skip-pat
Le Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:09:45AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > even simpler, an option or a format that would completely ignore what is
> > outside the debian directory:
>
> That's option "-i.*". As I said I plan to support the -i -I option
> i
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:02:02AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > dpkg-source -b heimdal-1.3.1.dfsg.1
> > dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)'
> > dpkg-source: warning: patches have not been applied, applying them now (use
> > --no-preparation to override)
> > dpkg-source: info
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I've considered using TopGit to generate a real quilt patch set, but
>> it's kind of complicated and I'm not convinced that the work required
>> to generate the exported patch tree even with TopGit is really worth
>> it. Given
also sprach Raphael Hertzog [2009.11.26.0920 +0100]:
> I would be ok to add support for this in "3.0 (quilt)":
> - add an option "--single-debian-patch" that could be set in
> debian/source/options. With this option dpkg-source would update
> debian/patches/debian-changes (instead of debian-ch
Le Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:09:45AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> you can end up building a binary package that does not match the source
> package that you upload together with the binary packages.
“You”? Not me. What I upload comes from sbuild.
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've considered using TopGit to generate a real quilt patch set, but
> it's kind of complicated and I'm not convinced that the work required to
> generate the exported patch tree even with TopGit is really worth it.
> Given that, for packages currentl
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> even simpler, an option or a format that would completely ignore what is
> outside the debian directory:
That's option "-i.*". As I said I plan to support the -i -I option
inside debian/source/options just like I recently added support for -z -Z
there.
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Joey Hess wrote:
>>> I understand that you do not want to throw away your work on this
>>> patch management system, but by making it optional, I think that you
>>> will actually increase your chances of success…
>> I think that's very wise.
> It is
Le Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:17:17AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> I can add a new option "--no-debian-patch" that would refuse to create the
> automatic quilt patch debian-changes- and make it fail instead if
> there are upstream changes.
Hi Raphaël,
even simpler, an option or a format tha
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > Bugs as of today.
>> > * Packages with different patch systems like linux-2.6. In this case
>> > dpkg-source ignores failures to register a patch and produces
>> > sources without the changes. (#557618)
>>
>> As
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Bugs as of today.
> > * Packages with different patch systems like linux-2.6. In this case
> > dpkg-source ignores failures to register a patch and produces
> > sources without the changes. (#557618)
>
> As discussed on IRC this is a matter
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I understand that you do not want to throw away your work on this patch
> > management system, but by making it optional, I think that you will actually
> > increase your chances of success…
>
> I think that's very wise.
It is optional already. Just don't
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 09:30 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > In the end, I decided to trust nothing and to verify if the first
> > patch can be applied or not. If it can be applied, we assume that the
> > patches have not been applied and we apply them
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> since a few weeks the Debian archive accepts source package using the new
>> formats "3.0 (quilt)" and "3.0 (native)".
>
> I tried "3.0 (quilt)" with several packages today and none worked
> properly, so s
Joey Hess writes:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> That's just wrong. I do it without problems by using the .quiltrc
>> snippet from /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source.
>
> Hmm, that is verging on "beware of the leopard" non-obviousness. I mean,
> you just argued in another mail that such a README.sou
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-23 09:50:15 CET]:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> > Actually, I feel rather to convert my packages to 3.0 (native) + quilt.
>> > The way quilt is implied in 3.0 (quilt) doesn't seem to be helpful (to
>> > me).
>>
>> Yay for r
On Mon, Nov 23 2009, Joey Hess wrote:
> Perhaps Raphael in turn was sensing that I didn't have a deep knowledge
> of git -- I had only used it for a month or so at the time. And in fact,
> we now know a much better way to do a git based format. I have been
> considering working on it again, after
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:30:59PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Ok, I did the following:
Disregard those results, I screwed up and forgot to cd into the new
working directory after I moved the old one. So it looked OK but
wasn't.
Retry. Hmmm. So far it looks better...
--
Brian May
--
To UNSUBSC
On So, 22 Nov 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > and as far as I see:
> > clean: unpatch
>
> Well, the latter is wrong - this breaks if you're patching the build system.
Ah, good to know, but well, my poiint is that this is a bit a PITA
if the system changes again and again. But that has nothing to
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:02:02AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Brian May wrote:
> > Next problem:
> >
> > [...]
> > dpkg-source -b heimdal-1.3.1.dfsg.1
> > dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)'
> > dpkg-source: warning: patches have not been applied, applyi
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> That's just wrong. I do it without problems by using the .quiltrc
> snippet from /usr/share/doc/quilt/README.source.
Hmm, that is verging on "beware of the leopard" non-obviousness. I mean,
you just argued in another mail that such a README.source would soon not
be necessa
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Maybe it is because you never wanted to listen to people who were
> interested to have the debian directory in a tar.gz, without a patch
> system on top of it?
>
> I answered to your feedback request, realised that you were not going to
> change
> your mind about format ‘3
Le Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:32:40AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> > Or you start and propose a different format that can be mostly like 3.0
> > (quilt) for the result (multiple tars) but without the implicit quilt
> > constraints.
>
> Not me, no. And people should have requested that 1-2 ye
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 01:53:34AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:50:15AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > For each patch:
> > - ...
> >
> > Note: this works only if quilt is not installed (or if you ensure
> > dpkg-source is called with --without-quilt which you currently
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 09:30 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> In the end, I decided to trust nothing and to verify if the first
> patch can be applied or not. If it can be applied, we assume that the
> patches have not been applied and we apply them all (unless
> --no-preparation is given). If quilt
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Brian May wrote:
> Next problem:
>
> [...]
> dpkg-source -b heimdal-1.3.1.dfsg.1
> dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)'
> dpkg-source: warning: patches have not been applied, applying them now (use
> --no-preparation to override)
> dpkg-source: info: applying
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:50:15AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> For each patch:
> - apply patch
> - dpkg-buildpackage -S
> - rename debian/patches/debian-changes- into something else
>and edit its headers
> - fix debian/patches/series
>
> Note: this works only if quilt is not installed (
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:12:58PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Am I doing something wrong?
>
> sys11:/home/brian/tree/heimdal# lintian heimdal_1.2.e1.dfsg.1-5_i386.changes
> warning: lintian's authors do not recommend running it with root privileges!
> internal error: command failed with error code
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> I tried "3.0 (quilt)" with several packages today and none worked
> properly, so several large packages will be stuck with "3.0 (native)".
1.0 is not going away even if we change the default.
> Bugs as of today.
Won't comment here. I have already comme
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> since a few weeks the Debian archive accepts source package using the new
> formats "3.0 (quilt)" and "3.0 (native)".
I tried "3.0 (quilt)" with several packages today and none worked
properly, so several large packages will be stu
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow [2009-11-23 09:48:36 CET]:
>> Why do you think that? I can split patches any which way and edit the
>> debian/patches/series to match all completly without quilt.
>
> How so? I don't find anything in man dpkg or dpkg-source that would
> help with
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:10:51AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-23 09:50:15 CET]:
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > > Actually, I feel rather to convert my packages to 3.0 (native) + quilt.
> > > The way quilt is implied in 3.0 (quilt) doesn't seem to
* Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-23 09:50:15 CET]:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > Actually, I feel rather to convert my packages to 3.0 (native) + quilt.
> > The way quilt is implied in 3.0 (quilt) doesn't seem to be helpful (to
> > me).
>
> Yay for reuploading the full tarball for e
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:30:00AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Well, they can drop the patch in debian/patches, and add it to
> > > the end of debian/patches/series. If quilt is installed, it should
> > > work as dpkg-source will use quilt
* Goswin von Brederlow [2009-11-23 09:48:36 CET]:
> Why do you think that? I can split patches any which way and edit the
> debian/patches/series to match all completly without quilt.
How so? I don't find anything in man dpkg or dpkg-source that would
help with that.
> It only becomes simpler w
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Actually, I feel rather to convert my packages to 3.0 (native) + quilt.
> The way quilt is implied in 3.0 (quilt) doesn't seem to be helpful (to
> me).
Yay for reuploading the full tarball for each revision! I'd rather you
keep using 1.0 instead of doi
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> Hi! :)
>
> * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-22 10:48:14 CET]:
>> > Note that the squeeze release goal only talks about 3.0 (quilt), not 3.0
>> > (native), which kind of suggests 3.0 (quilt) is being forced down.
>> > That's maybe not what you are thinking, but it's how i
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Well, they can drop the patch in debian/patches, and add it to
> > the end of debian/patches/series. If quilt is installed, it should
> > work as dpkg-source will use quilt applied to know
> > whether patches needs to be applied. If quilt is not
Hi! :)
* Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-22 10:48:14 CET]:
> > Note that the squeeze release goal only talks about 3.0 (quilt), not 3.0
> > (native), which kind of suggests 3.0 (quilt) is being forced down.
> > That's maybe not what you are thinking, but it's how it feels.
>
> Well, the combina
Mike Hommey writes:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:30:45AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> > > Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its
>> > > meta-informati
Mike Hommey writes:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its
>> meta-information. Or because maybe you're applying 2 separate patches in
>> the same NMU upload.
>
> "Fixing cosmetic issues or changin
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> The modifications are implied, but it means that the source format is
>> already this "heavy modification", on a similarly heavy modification
>> scale. Additionally, if someone wants to sepearte the patches into
>> feat
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> You need to put "3.0 (quilt)" or "3.0 (native)" in debian/source/format to
> indicate the desired format to dpkg-source (see the dpkg-source(1) manual
> page for more information).
Am I doing something wrong?
sys11:/home/brian/tre
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:30:45AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its
> > > meta-information. Or because maybe you're
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > My point is : dpkg-source -x should be idempotent, whatever other
> > packages are installed when you do it. The fact that you can't
> > dpkg-source -x, and *then* install quilt to manage the patches is a
> >
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Also, as a side comment, I would like to add that the “NMU workflow” often
> advertised on this list completely ignores that a large number of packages are
> stored in a VCS where all DDs have write acceess. Uploading a package with an
> anonymous and mo
Le Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:51:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> Currently a package without a patch system needs heavy modifications in
> debian/rules to setup the patch system. So when you want to add a patch in
> debian/patches and not in the .diff.gz, you have to choose a patch system
>
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its
> > meta-information. Or because maybe you're applying 2 separate patches in
> > the same NMU upload.
>
> "Fixing cosm
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:48:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Because you want the patch to be clearly identified and to carry its
> meta-information. Or because maybe you're applying 2 separate patches in
> the same NMU upload.
"Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the packaging style in NMUs
Hi,
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:51:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Currently a package without a patch system needs heavy modifications in
> > debian/rules to setup the patch system. So when you want to add a patch in
> > debian/patches and not in th
Hi,
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Olivier Berger wrote:
> Maybe that's very explicit for eveyone, but I couldn't find any
> explenation for regular humans of what "quilt" is (ok, I think I have a
> clue, but remember not all newcomers may be familiar with it for
> instance), and then what the difference ar
Hi.
Le samedi 21 novembre 2009 à 16:54 +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> We have collected some question/answers from early adopters in
> the dedicated wiki page, the most important information is pasted
> below. We hope you will find it helpful to convert your own packages.
> http:/
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 01:16:47AM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Besides that that snippet is broken? It made me nuts that quilt people
> are changing that snippet and breaking many packages, like all of mine.
> It should be:
> build-stamp: $(QUILT_STAMPFN)
> ...
> and as far as I see:
>
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> Hi!
>
> Some few comments.
>
> * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-21 16:54:36 CET]:
>> * even if you don't have any upstream patch right now, next time that
>>someone must NMU your package, they can cleanly add a patch (with a
>>proper DEP-3 header) without havin
On Sa, 21 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Heavy modification? What's so heavy on three entries there?
>
> include /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make
>
> clean:
> [...]
> unpatch
>
> build-stamp: patch
Besides that that snippet is broken? It made me nuts that quilt people
are changing th
* Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-21 20:51:51 CET]:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-21 16:54:36 CET]:
> > > * even if you don't have any upstream patch right now, next time that
> > >someone must NMU your package, they can cleanly add a patch (wi
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:51:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Currently a package without a patch system needs heavy modifications in
> debian/rules to setup the patch system. So when you want to add a patch in
> debian/patches and not in the .diff.gz, you have to choose a patch system
> in pl
Hi,
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-21 16:54:36 CET]:
> > * even if you don't have any upstream patch right now, next time that
> >someone must NMU your package, they can cleanly add a patch (with a
> >proper DEP-3 header) without having to modify
Hi!
Some few comments.
* Raphael Hertzog [2009-11-21 16:54:36 CET]:
> * even if you don't have any upstream patch right now, next time that
>someone must NMU your package, they can cleanly add a patch (with a
>proper DEP-3 header) without having to modify the build system
Thi
69 matches
Mail list logo
