Hello,
Guillem Jover, on Mon 18 Apr 2016 10:50:54 +0200, wrote:
> Samuel Thibault recently reported in #818618 that the Binary field in
> the .changes files does not get filtered to only include the binary
> packages that are being uploaded,
Well, yes, but the original issue is only that it also
Hi!
Samuel Thibault recently reported in #818618 that the Binary field in
the .changes files does not get filtered to only include the binary
packages that are being uploaded, as documented in the ancient
doc/programming.sgml in dpkg 1.3.3 [P], current debian-policy and
now in the dpkg deb-changes
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: changes file format"):
> I don't think we should mandate that a script exist somewhere to parse
> the machine-readable format and generate a human-readable format from
> it, when we could just as easily have a format that is both human- and
> mac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> At the moment, I have to run a special script to convert the dchanges
> md5sum format into a format that md5sum -c can understand. This is a
> pain.
I'd like to point out that "dpkg" should verify the package for the end-user.
Someone who doesn't know how to write a sc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I must urge restraint in automating the process. All packages should
> be inspected and moved into the distribution by a human. I am
> strongly of that opinion.
I bet you'll thank us for whatever automation there is once you decide it's
time to have a life again :-) .
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 20:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'd intended to drop this topic, but I'll belabor one point here.
If package announcements are uploaded to debian.org for machine
parsing and debian-changes announcements are machine-generated from
Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>We need to be able to feed the announcement to `md5sum -c', which
>expects.
>
> I agree completely. At the moment, I have to run a special script to
> convert the dchanges md5sum format into a format that md5sum -c can
> understand. This is a pain.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 14:05 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> File permissions, link count, ownership an modification times on
> the maintainer's system are not of general interest, why include
> them in an announcement? The rest easily fits onto a single line
> and put
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> [...]
> > The only thing I think I need to do this is a way to represent a
> > blank line in the dchanges format's "Changes" field.
>
> Didn't you do something like this for the description field in Debian
> packages?
Yes, some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> It's important that the distribution channels for the MD5 checksum
> information and the files themselves remain separate. (For this
> reason I think that putting the MD5 checksums in the Incoming
> directory itself is bad - there should be a separate administrative
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Release announcements are prepared in whatever way the package
> maintainer likes, and submitted in a format that looks like yours.
It would be nice if we could use the existing "dchanges" tool to do this.
> The announcements are reformatted into a format that looks
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: changes file format "):
> > [...]
> > I also reiterate my suggestion that we stop the practice
> > of maintainers announcing directly (and prematurely)
> > to debian-changes, and have t
Ian Jackson writes:
>James A. Robinson writes ("Re: changes file format "):
No, that's me whom you are quoting here
>> >847dfb732aa3e994f1917d27ffc20eb3 adduser-1.94-2.deb
>> >70fa124c71e5b709019f6729eb8cfe11 adduser-1.94-2.tar.gz
>> >-rw-r--r-
James A. Robinson writes ("Re: changes file format "):
> >847dfb732aa3e994f1917d27ffc20eb3 adduser-1.94-2.deb
> >70fa124c71e5b709019f6729eb8cfe11 adduser-1.94-2.tar.gz
> >-rw-r--r-- 1 root root13122 Oct 23 18:43 adduser-1.94-2.deb
> >-rw-rw-r-- 1
Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: changes file format "):
> [...]
> I also reiterate my suggestion that we stop the practice
> of maintainers announcing directly (and prematurely)
> to debian-changes, and have the maintainer announcements
> uploaded to debian.org along wit
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: changes file format "):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Are you saying it looks anywhere near as nice as mine ?
>
> Well, I think it looks awful, but I will accept your format simply
> to end this argument if you or someone else
> will write
On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, James A. Robinson wrote:
> But Ian, almost _any_ format can be made machine readable -- but
> Bill's format is _easily_ machine readable -- you could slap together
> a whole bunch of ways to read it. I'm very much against going all out
> for "beauty" when you can have a nice
Ian Jackson writes:
>Bill Mitchell writes ("changes file format"):
>> Just out of curiosity, does the following represent a horribly
>> formatted and human-unreadable package announcement? Except for
>> the lack of a Priority field, it passes the dchanges(1) syntax
> I completely fail to understand why anyone is promoting this format.
>
> It is ugly, and my format is machine readable too.
But Ian, almost _any_ format can be made machine readable -- but
Bill's format is _easily_ machine readable -- you could slap together
a whole bunch of ways to read it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Please add "and document" to this. If tools are introduced into the
> distribution, the author and maintainer of those tools should provide
> and maintain man pages for them.
Yes, that makes sense. The parse wasn't immediately obvious to me. For
example, is the semic
On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Are you saying it looks anywhere near as nice as mine ?
>
> Well, I think it looks awful, but I will accept your format simply
> to end this argument if you or someone else
> will write and maintain the parser for it and
> an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Are you saying it looks anywhere near as nice as mine ?
Well, I think it looks awful, but I will accept your format simply
to end this argument if you or someone else
will write and maintain the parser for it and
an automated tool to generate it.
I don't see how you cou
Bill Mitchell writes ("changes file format"):
> Just out of curiosity, does the following represent a horribly
> formatted and human-unreadable package announcement? Except for
> the lack of a Priority field, it passes the dchanges(1) syntax check.
I completely fail to under
The following is taken from an email message I received from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I hope he doesn't object to my
posting his email and my responses to debian-devel. I
think points made here could usefully contribute to the changes
file format discussion.
> In article <[EMAIL PROTE
> Just out of curiosity, does the following represent a horribly
> formatted and human-unreadable package announcement? Except for
> the lack of a Priority field, it passes the dchanges(1) syntax check.
Very nice! I think it looks quite good. I also happen to like seeing
the MD5SUM and file si
Just out of curiosity, does the following represent a horribly
formatted and human-unreadable package announcement? Except for
the lack of a Priority field, it passes the dchanges(1) syntax check.
> Date: Mon Oct 23 18:43:31 MET 1995
> Package: adduser
> Version: 1.94-2
> Description: Utilit
26 matches
Mail list logo
