Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote: >>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> [...] Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<<

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is very true. I wasn't aware of the SVN repository until it was > mentioned in this thread. Over the weekend, I have merged almost all > the SVN changes: Many thanks for the work. It is greatly appreciated. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Last year the aim was to get the buildd sbuild and debian sbuild back >> in sync and it pains me to see Ryan silently diferting it

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote: >> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild >> > (the cvs

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Hi, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh schrieb: > We really need another substvar with different semantics. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/09/msg01251.html Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote: >> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [...] >>> Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<< >>> {Upstream-Version}), (>= {Upstream-Version}.1). >>

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:42:41 -0200]: > Yes. It is just a matter of which one you like better. You could also have > one depends and one conflicts instead of two conflicts or two depends. Versioned conflicts are said to increase apt's trouble to upgrade from one sta

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<< > > {Upstream-Version}), (>= {Upstream-Version}.1). > > Depends: foo (>={Upstream-Version}), foo (<< {Upstream-Ver

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<< > {Upstream-Version}), (>= {Upstream-Version}.1). Depends: foo (>={Upstream-Version}), foo (<< {Upstream-Version}.1) instead should also work without the need for

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > OK. So I was working on the problem of fixing dpkg-dev so that > > foo Depends: foo-data {SourceVersion}, foo-libs {BinaryVersion} > > or something similar actually works. By parsing the version numbers. I'd very much like debhelper or dpkg-* to g

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Blrgh! OK. So I was working on the problem of fixing dpkg-dev so that foo Depends: foo-data {SourceVersion}, foo-libs {BinaryVersion} or something similar actually works. By parsing the version numbers. Now it's apparently been changed under our noses, in such a way that my proposed sch

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> >> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > They w

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:03:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> It just pains me that Debian does not include all the software to >> build Debian. > > Sure it does. It just doesn't include the software that Debian uses to > automatically build

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:03:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It's in Debian, and it's easy to use and understand. If it doesn't > > diverge too far from the sbuild actually on svn.cyberhqz.com, it's also > > good enough to give you a workin

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it si

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Adeodato "=?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Goswin von Brederlow [Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:51:24 +0100]: > > Hi, > >> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's >> > diverged a bit from the code you're main

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's >> > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining. >> >> Th

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:44:42PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> >> If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I personally see the packages in unstable as something good for >> > end-users who want to use it, or understand how the system wo

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Michael Banck wrote: > 1. Please drop the `secret' immediately. Unless you really want to call > http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd `secret'. That your mail got resent > with the this subject to debian-devel-announce is already stressing it > *a lot*, IMHO. I did the forward

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

* Goswin von Brederlow [Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:51:24 +0100]: Hi, > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's > > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining. > Then he should send patches and bug reports to the debian >

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's > > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining. > > Then he should send patches and bug reports to the d

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:44:42PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > >> (the cvs, not deb) > > > > P

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I personally see the packages in unstable as something good for > > end-users who want to use it, or understand how the system works; but > > for Debian's purposes, it's not optim

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining. Then he should send patches and bug reports to the debian package. This split between the user/developer visible sbuild and the sec

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild >> (the cvs, not deb) > > Patches for the Debian package are welcome, of course. > > > Michael Do you know

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > > (the cvs, not deb) > > Which sbuild CVS repo? It's actually a subversion repository, and it's at

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > > (the cvs, not deb) > > Which sbuild CVS repo? It is a SVN repo now, the one used by the buildd infra

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > (the cvs, not deb) Which sbuild CVS repo? I'll be happy to merge the changes into the official sbuild package (buildd-tools

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > (the cvs, not deb) Patches for the Debian package are welcome, of course. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ad

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> - buildds can recompile a source with a binNMU version > > We were told about this, although I can't recall if the proper channel > (d-d-a) was used. > > Would you consider posting your me

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051123 15:51]: >> - binNMU version scheme changed >> >> The developer reference _still_ states binNMU should be versioned as >> 1.2-3.0.1. The DAK will no longer accept this. > > I am sorry that the develo

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > - buildds can recompile a source with a binNMU version We were told about this, although I can't recall if the proper channel (d-d-a) was used. Would you consider posting your message to debian-devel-announce, please? That's where such extremely

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051123 15:51]: > - binNMU version scheme changed > > The developer reference _still_ states binNMU should be versioned as > 1.2-3.0.1. The DAK will no longer accept this. I am sorry that the developers reference is a bit lagging currently. Do you ha

Secret changes for binNMUs

Hi, recently some changes have been made to the DAK, wanna-build and buildds for binNMUs that probably went unnoticed to most developers. And since binNMUs are rather uncommon you might not notice for the longest time and then despair. So heres a summary: - buildds can recompile a source with a