On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:42:46 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>At a guess: He doesn't mean ship the pristine upstream, he means to ship
>a shell script that derives the Debian .orig.tar.gz from a pristine copy
>of upstream obtained separately so that the process is reproducible. Thi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29 Apr 2006, Marc Haber stated:
>> Agreed. An accepted way to do this is to ship a shell script with the
>> Debian source package which operates on an pristine upstream tarball
>> obtained from upstream and delivers the Debian .orig.tar.gz for
>> c
On 29 Apr 2006, Marc Haber stated:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:20:32 +0200, "Bernhard R. Link"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For me a changed .orig.tar.gz means I no longer can easily verify
>> what exactly is changed. So I have to not only to download the
>> original upstream version and unpack it
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:20:32 +0200, "Bernhard R. Link"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For me a changed .orig.tar.gz means I no longer can easily verify what
>exactly is changed. So I have to not only to download the original
>upstream version and unpack it and make sure the files do not differ,
>I hav
On 25 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link outgrape:
> * Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060425 18:09]:
>> On what basis are you making this decision? I explained that it is
>> important, for debugging and development reasons for the free
>> software community, to be able to easily build upstream vers
Re: To debian-devel@lists.debian.org 2006-04-26 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [*] Though I don't think "we" ever said Manoj's wish to rename the
> package was unethical - "we" just think that it confuses users more
> than it serves them. But as said, that's up to the maintainer to
> decide.
Hrm, I missed
Re: Russ Allbery 2006-04-26 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Must we decide on a policy? Can't Manoj just package gnus-dfsg and
> > be done with it? Is that really such a big problem?
>
> > I think not.
>
> Amen.
>
> I can understand people disagreeing with Manoj's choice, but am completely
> mystified b
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060425 20:45]:
> > For me a changed .orig.tar.gz means I no longer can easily verify what
> > exactly is changed. So I have to not only to download the original
>
> This is a bug. debian/copyright might be in the diff, but it still needs to
> des
Jorgen Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Must we decide on a policy? Can't Manoj just package gnus-dfsg and
> be done with it? Is that really such a big problem?
> I think not.
Amen.
I can understand people disagreeing with Manoj's choice, but am completely
mystified by having that disagre
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> For me a changed .orig.tar.gz means I no longer can easily verify what
> exactly is changed. So I have to not only to download the original
This is a bug. debian/copyright might be in the diff, but it still needs to
describe all changes to upstream.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. But there are user expectations, and when you talk about
> source package for Gnus, the assumption is that the orig,tar.gz comes
> from the FSF, and the debian changes are in the diff.gz. There are
> debian specific changes to Gnus, a
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060425 18:09]:
> On what basis are you making this decision? I explained that
> it is important, for debugging and development reasons for the free
> software community, to be able to easily build upstream versions to
> see how it compares to the d
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060425 15:59]:
> > Such a stripped down archive will most likely not have a working
> > build system and some stale references to stuff no longer contained,
> > which can and has to be cleaned up in the .diff.gz (at least for the
> > stuff relevant stuff, no
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Should Debian enforce a policy here?
>
> There is a Developer's reference quite explicit about that topic
> and all those packages beside his.
I guess you refer to "6.7.8 Best practices for orig.tar.gz files".
This describes one way to accomplish
On 25 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link verbalised:
> * Jorgen Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060425 14:34]:
>> The discussion is about whether, after the removal of data from an
>> upstream .tar.gz, it is ok for it to be still named ".orig.tar.gz"
>> (with a version that does not exist upstream).
>
> Th
* Jorgen Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060425 14:34]:
> The discussion is about whether, after the removal of data from an
> upstream .tar.gz, it is ok for it to be still named ".orig.tar.gz"
> (with a version that does not exist upstream).
The question I was answering was about what I consider "
On 25 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link outgrape:
> * James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060424 18:36]:
>>> On the other hand a different source package name has also a
>>> specific meaning. It means it is a different source package, which
>>> means it is a differnt upstream or a different package. Unless y
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - upstream includes "genuinely useless cruft" which removal
> causes "significant space savings" (Imagine some 20k tool
> containing 50M screenshots of how cool it is once you got
> it compiled)
> -> repack it removing that stuff
>
* James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060424 18:36]:
> > On the other hand a different source package name has also a specific
> > meaning. It means it is a different source package, which means it is
> > a differnt upstream or a different package. Unless you want to fork
> > the package or add other f
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 04:51:48PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst uttered the following:
>
> > On Mon, April 24, 2006 15:39, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> new upload _now_. I feel uncomfortable acceding to practices I
> >> consider unethical, and I lack the motivat
On 24 Apr 2006, Joey Hess outgrape:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Rubbish. I do no such thing, and I'll thank you not to try and
>> escalate this into a flamewar. The difference of opinion is merely
>> that -- differing views held by different people.
>>
>> I consider the practice of creating a fak
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Rubbish. I do no such thing, and I'll thank you not to try and
> escalate this into a flamewar. The difference of opinion is merely
> that -- differing views held by different people.
>
> I consider the practice of creating a fake upstream version
> and
On 24 Apr 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst verbalised:
> Thanks for proving my point.
> I think it's due time to close this entire discussion.
Prove what? That you are a troll who brought nothing
constructive to the discussion, and have demonstrated how effectively
you can cause a discussion to re
On Mon, April 24, 2006 23:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> uttered the following:
> Rubbish.
> If you think those are noght struggles, you are naive.
> You are very silly, really, thinking this.
> Please grow up.
> Your lack of imagination
> Don't you have anything better to do
> topics you see
> There's no reason for the build system changes not to live in the
> diff.gz. Other than making the orig.tar.gz broken on its own.
I have covered this before. But since you missed it:
>> Well, I think it is important for people to be able to build
>> make/gnus which is the same
On 24 Apr 2006, Ben Pfaff stated:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 24 Apr 2006, Thomas Bushnell said:
>>> The version is not the only documentation. The "dfsg" tag in
>>> version names means not "this is the upstream dfsg version", it
>>> means "this is the Debian-modified v
On 24 Apr 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst uttered the following:
> On Mon, April 24, 2006 15:39, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> new upload _now_. I feel uncomfortable acceding to practices I
>> consider unethical, and I lack the motivation to fight the ftp
>> masters and the project on this issue.
>
> You use t
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006, Thomas Bushnell said:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> In this case, there have been deeply felt and vehement
> >> protests for Debian removing a critical subset of the software
> >> shipped with make/gnus,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 24 Apr 2006, Thomas Bushnell said:
>> The version is not the only documentation. The "dfsg" tag in
>> version names means not "this is the upstream dfsg version", it
>> means "this is the Debian-modified version, where the only
>> modifications ma
On 24 Apr 2006, Thomas Bushnell said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> In this case, there have been deeply felt and vehement
>> protests for Debian removing a critical subset of the software
>> shipped with make/gnus, with people appealing to keep the code
>> together with the
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In this case, there have been deeply felt and vehement
> protests for Debian removing a critical subset of the software
> shipped with make/gnus, with people appealing to keep the code
> together with the docs even if it meant removing the
On Mon, April 24, 2006 15:39, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> new upload _now_. I feel uncomfortable acceding to practices I consider
> unethical, and I lack the motivation to fight the ftp masters and the
> project on this issue.
You use the term "unethical" to describe a difference in opinion about a
On 24 Apr 2006, Ben Pfaff spake thusly:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Also, other people doing what I consider unethical is not
>> really much of a motivating factor for me to follow the same
>> unethical practice. I might not be haranguing other folks, since
>> there ethos
On 24 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link spake thusly:
> * Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060424 18:14]:
>> * Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060424 17:39]:
>>>
Package gnus, version x.y-z.dfsg. That way its clearly marked
that gnus is modified to be dfsg free, and you dont change
On 24 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link spake thusly:
> * Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060424 17:39]:
>>
>>> Package gnus, version x.y-z.dfsg. That way its clearly marked
>>> that gnus is modified to be dfsg free, and you dont change any
>>> source/package name. A lot of other packages in Debia
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 06:13:11PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060424 17:39]:
> >
> > > Package gnus, version x.y-z.dfsg.
> > > That way its clearly marked that gnus is modified to be dfsg free,
> > > and you dont change any source/package name. A lot o
* Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060424 18:14]:
> * Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060424 17:39]:
> >
> > > Package gnus, version x.y-z.dfsg.
> > > That way its clearly marked that gnus is modified to be dfsg free,
> > > and you dont change any source/package name. A lot of other pac
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, other people doing what I consider unethical is not
> really much of a motivating factor for me to follow the same
> unethical practice. I might not be haranguing other folks, since
> there ethos may well differ from mine, but I am n
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060424 17:39]:
>
> > Package gnus, version x.y-z.dfsg.
> > That way its clearly marked that gnus is modified to be dfsg free,
> > and you dont change any source/package name. A lot of other packages
> > in Debian already go this way, I dont see why gnus can'
* Jorgen Schaefer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > After seven and a half years of maintaining Gnus, I am having
> > to give away the package, on what I consider is a matter of
> > principle. My upload removing non-DFSG bits was rejected, o
> Package gnus, version x.y-z.dfsg.
> That way its clearly marked that gnus is modified to be dfsg free,
> and you dont change any source/package name. A lot of other packages
> in Debian already go this way, I dont see why gnus can't do it.
In Debian, source package components have preci
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After seven and a half years of maintaining Gnus, I am having
> to give away the package, on what I consider is a matter of
> principle. My upload removing non-DFSG bits was rejected, on the
> grounds that the upload renamed the source pac
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Hi,
After seven and a half years of maintaining Gnus, I am having
to give away the package, on what I consider is a matter of
principle. My upload removing non-DFSG bits was rejected, on the
grounds that the upload renamed the source package name (the bi
43 matches
Mail list logo
