On October 15, 2024 12:20:27 PM UTC, Guillem Jover wrote:
>Hi!
>
>On Tue, 2024-10-08 at 09:01:06 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> 1) Take current non-OpenBSD 'signify' source package and upload NEW
>> 'signify-mail' with d/control modified as:
>>
>> Source: signify-mail
>> ...
>> Package: sign
Hi!
On Tue, 2024-10-08 at 09:01:06 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> 1) Take current non-OpenBSD 'signify' source package and upload NEW
> 'signify-mail' with d/control modified as:
>
> Source: signify-mail
> ...
> Package: signify-mail
> Replaces: signify (<= 1.14-7)
>
> Do we need 'Breaks: signi
Hi!
On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 19:42:45 +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 10:26 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Mon Oct 7, 2024 at 8:58 AM BST, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > P.S.: Isnt it about time to rename exim4 to exim?
> >
> > Or apache2 to apache?
> The ASF is responsible for
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024, 12:43 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 10:26 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Mon Oct 7, 2024 at 8:58 AM BST, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > P.S.: Isnt it about time to rename exim4 to exim?
> >
> > Or apache2 to apache?
>
> The ASF is responsible for a lot more tha
On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 10:26 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon Oct 7, 2024 at 8:58 AM BST, Marc Haber wrote:
> > P.S.: Isnt it about time to rename exim4 to exim?
>
> Or apache2 to apache?
The ASF is responsible for a lot more than httpd now, and is also
(gradually) moving away from using th
On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 11:02:47AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Thanks for review! I tried to revise the plan below, does this work?
>
> I think we should compare this plan to simply remove the 'signify'
> package, but haven't fleshed out that plan yet.
>
> /Simon
>
> x) Take current non-Ope
Hi,
On 10/9/24 18:02, Simon Josefsson wrote:
x) Take current non-OpenBSD 'signify' source package and upload NEW
'signify-mail' package, say version 1.14-8 (?), that provides
/usr/bin/signify-mail instead of /usr/bin/signify, and has d/control:
Source: signify-mail
...
Package: signify-mail
On Mon Oct 7, 2024 at 8:58 AM BST, Marc Haber wrote:
> P.S.: Isnt it about time to rename exim4 to exim?
Or apache2 to apache?
--
Please do not CC me for listmail.
👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎j...@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net
Thanks for review! I tried to revise the plan below, does this work?
I think we should compare this plan to simply remove the 'signify'
package, but haven't fleshed out that plan yet.
/Simon
x) Take current non-OpenBSD 'signify' source package and upload NEW
'signify-mail' package, say version
Paul Gevers writes:
> Hi
>
> On 08-10-2024 09:01, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> 3) Open a wishlist bug for 'signify-openbsd' with a patch to provide a
>> 'Package: signify' that has /usr/bin/signify and to add:
>
> Do I understand correctly that signify-mail will also provide a
> /usr/bin/signify?
Y
Hi
On 08-10-2024 09:01, Simon Josefsson wrote:
3) Open a wishlist bug for 'signify-openbsd' with a patch to provide a
'Package: signify' that has /usr/bin/signify and to add:
Do I understand correctly that signify-mail will also provide a
/usr/bin/signify? That's not allowed if the binaries h
Hi,
On 10/8/24 16:01, Simon Josefsson wrote:
1) Take current non-OpenBSD 'signify' source package and upload NEW
'signify-mail' with d/control modified as:
Source: signify-mail
...
Package: signify-mail
Replaces: signify (<= 1.14-7)
Do we need 'Breaks: signify (<= 1.14-7)' too? Conflicts
Attempting to summarize this thread into actions - please correct me
when I misunderstood:
1) Take current non-OpenBSD 'signify' source package and upload NEW
'signify-mail' with d/control modified as:
Source: signify-mail
...
Package: signify-mail
Replaces: signify (<= 1.14-7)
Do we need 'Break
* Simon Richter [241007 09:50]:
> On 10/7/24 21:43, Marvin Renich wrote:
>
> > trixie:
> >remove old src: signify
>
> yes.
>
> >single source upload:
> > src: signify -> signify-mail
> > binary: signify -> signify-mail
> > new signify as transitional
> >
Hi,
On 10/7/24 21:43, Marvin Renich wrote:
trixie:
remove old src: signify
yes.
single source upload:
src: signify -> signify-mail
binary: signify -> signify-mail
new signify as transitional
unversioned Depends: signify-mail
yes.
trixie
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:31:33 +0900, Simon Richter
wrote:
>On 10/7/24 16:58, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I also see trouble in the archive when we have old signify in older
>> distributions and new signify in unstable and testing. Without having
>> any technical justification for that, I would probably go
* Simon Richter [241007 04:32]:
> The correct approach is one release with a transitional package, pulling the
> new package in, and one release with the name unused (so the transitional
> package is listed in Obsolete/Local).
>
> The release without the package also makes sure that any archive v
Hi,
On 10/7/24 16:58, Marc Haber wrote:
I also see trouble in the archive when we have old signify in older
distributions and new signify in unstable and testing. Without having
any technical justification for that, I would probably go ahead to
rename signify to signify-mail, leaving signify-op
On Sat, 05 Oct 2024 20:39:39 +0200, Ben Hutchings
wrote:
>I'm fairly sure there's no support for this in Debian infrastructure
>(dak or debbugs).
I have the gut feeling that this is going to cause at least minor
discomfort because our tools don't care for that at all. I still get
occasional mail
On Sun Oct 6, 2024 at 4:45 PM BST, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> If you do not rename signify(src) to signify-mail(src) the bts might mix
> up bugs against signify(bin) from signify-openbsd(src) with bugs against
> the source package signify.
Do we know in which direction the problem might occur? signi
On 2024-10-06 17:45:46 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> If you do not rename signify(src) to signify-mail(src) the bts might mix
> up bugs against signify(bin) from signify-openbsd(src) with bugs against
> the source package signify.
>
> Renaming signify-openbsd(src) to signify(src) w
On Sun, 2024-10-06 at 17:45 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2024-10-06 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> [...]
> > I agree in principle, but I wonder if going through the effort of
> > introducing a new source package 'signify-mail' and removing the current
> > 'signify' will give us anything beyond doi
On Sun, 2024-10-06 at 09:45 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
[...]
> I agree in principle, but I wonder if going through the effort of
> introducing a new source package 'signify-mail' and removing the current
> 'signify' will give us anything beyond doing the QA package upload to
> rename the binary
On 2024-10-06 Simon Josefsson wrote:
[...]
> I agree in principle, but I wonder if going through the effort of
> introducing a new source package 'signify-mail' and removing the current
> 'signify' will give us anything beyond doing the QA package upload to
> rename the binary package.
> The only
Marco d'Itri writes:
> On Oct 05, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> I would like that 'apt install signify' install OpenBSD's signify (from
>> the Debian 'signify-openbsd' package) and not the 2003 mail-related
>> signify perl script from the Debian 'signify' source package.
> Agreed: the current sign
Ben Hutchings writes:
> On Sat, 2024-10-05 at 20:15 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, 2024-10-05 at 12:31 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > This will rename the binary package to 'signify-mail', as suggested in
>> > > the first bug report above
On Sat, 2024-10-05 at 20:15 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2024-10-05 at 12:31 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > [...]
> > > This will rename the binary package to 'signify-mail', as suggested in
> > > the first bug report above, and add a 'signify (<< 1.14-8~
Ben Hutchings writes:
> On Sat, 2024-10-05 at 12:31 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> [...]
>> This will rename the binary package to 'signify-mail', as suggested in
>> the first bug report above, and add a 'signify (<< 1.14-8~)' Replaces
>> header.
>>
>> Is anything more required here?
> [...]
>
On Sat, 2024-10-05 at 12:31 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
[...]
> This will rename the binary package to 'signify-mail', as suggested in
> the first bug report above, and add a 'signify (<< 1.14-8~)' Replaces
> header.
>
> Is anything more required here?
[...]
Yes, I think you should also rename
On Oct 05, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I would like that 'apt install signify' install OpenBSD's signify (from
> the Debian 'signify-openbsd' package) and not the 2003 mail-related
> signify perl script from the Debian 'signify' source package.
Agreed: the current signify package is a niche tool mai
Hi
I would like that 'apt install signify' install OpenBSD's signify (from
the Debian 'signify-openbsd' package) and not the 2003 mail-related
signify perl script from the Debian 'signify' source package.
I would also like that /usr/bin/signify is OpenBSD's signify, after
doing the 'apt install s
31 matches
Mail list logo
