Am Mittwoch, den 25.05.2011, 14:49 +0200 schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 23:51 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 21.05.2011, 21:41 +0200 schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
> > > On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 00:26 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > > Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 23:51 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 21.05.2011, 21:41 +0200 schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 00:26 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 12:26 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Be
Am Samstag, den 21.05.2011, 21:41 +0200 schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
> On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 00:26 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 12:26 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
> > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > > Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 00:05 +
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 00:26 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 12:26 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 00:05 + schrieb Roger Leigh:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:01:12PM +0100, Ben
On 12/03/2011 12:51, Benjamin Drung wrote:
pull-debian-source (?)
apt-get source $src ?
Not really, because for "apt-get source $src" you need an entry in your
sources.list. With "pull-debian-source $src experimental" you get the
experimental package, with "pull-debian-source $src lenny" you
Am Donnerstag, den 10.03.2011, 18:32 +0100 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy:
> On 08/03/2011 23:01, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> >
> > check-symbols
>
> I always hated programs that do "sudo" (and even more those doing it
> *twice*). And, isn't just unpacking the .deb and checking for ".so"
> there enough? You cou
Am Donnerstag, den 10.03.2011, 14:34 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Also, considering we are talking about Python and not, say, my beloved
> > OCaml, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that among active Debian
> > developers we have now
Am Freitag, den 11.03.2011, 00:18 +0100 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:15:22PM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > James Vega seems to be the most active devscripts maintainer these days,
> > and he does this (as far as I know) in his spare time. If he does not
> > want to have
On 11/03/2011 11:11, Joachim Breitner wrote:
There is also this in haskell-debian-utils, although not very widely
advocated:
* apt-get-build-depends:
Tool which will parse the Build-Depends{-Indep} lines from debian/control
and apt-get install the required packages
see http://packag
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 11.03.2011, 09:58 + schrieb Neil Williams:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:51:50 -0800
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:32:28PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > > >get-build-deps
> >
> > > Is this an alias for "apt-get build-dep $1"?
> >
> > No, it's a to
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:32:27 -0800
Steve Langasek wrote:
> FWIW, mk-build-deps is close, but not exactly what I'm looking for
> personally. I really want a command that, without needing to specify any
> extra options, does 'mk-build-deps -i -r debian/control', because I think
> this is the commo
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:51:50 -0800
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:32:28PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > >get-build-deps
>
> > Is this an alias for "apt-get build-dep $1"?
>
> No, it's a tool that's been long missing from a Debian as a standard
> interface - "install the bui
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2011-03-11 00:18 +0100]:
> First of all, I'm not sure anymore that I see the point of discussing
> the *language issue* in a circle larger than the devscripts
> maintainers. ... The language issue should probably be a decision
> within the devscripts team, together with the sc
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:34:51PM -0500, James Vega wrote:
> I completely agree that rewriting the tools isn't a useful effort. I
> was more concerned that there had been significant development done on
> scripts that were intended to be proposed to devscripts and yet were
> intentionally being w
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:15:22PM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> James Vega seems to be the most active devscripts maintainer these days,
> and he does this (as far as I know) in his spare time. If he does not
> want to have python scripts in it, I see no justification to force him
> to do so. I al
On 03/10/2011 10:32 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:50:57PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:51:50 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> get-build-deps
Is this an alias for "apt-get build-dep $1"?
>>> No, it's a tool that's been long missing from a
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:50:57PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:51:50 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > >get-build-deps
> > > Is this an alias for "apt-get build-dep $1"?
> > No, it's a tool that's been long missing from a Debian as a standard
> > interface - "install th
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:48:21 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> To conclude with an obvious argument, rewriting useful tools which are
> known to work and which are currently maintained by a derived distro,
> when they are already written in a popular language, doesn't seem to be
> the smartest th
Hi James (2011.03.10_21:34:51_+0200)
> I completely agree that rewriting the tools isn't a useful effort. I
> was more concerned that there had been significant development done on
> scripts that were intended to be proposed to devscripts and yet were
> intentionally being written in a language th
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:51:50 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >get-build-deps
> > Is this an alias for "apt-get build-dep $1"?
> No, it's a tool that's been long missing from a Debian as a standard
> interface - "install the build-dependencies for the package in my current
> directory".
Sounds si
On 2011-03-10, Carsten Hey wrote:
> One way to have both, all members of the devscripts team keep their
> current vim in maintaining it, and not wasting the potential developer
> resources of these two DDs, could be the following:
>
> Package: devscripts
> Maintainer: Devscripts Devel Team
>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Also, considering we are talking about Python and not, say, my beloved
> OCaml, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that among active Debian
> developers we have nowadays more Python knowledge than Perl knowledge
> (but I'm already regr
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2011-03-10 18:48 +0100]:
> The argument of maintenance burden is in general a valid one, but IME
> maintenance burden in devscripts is more limited by the amount of
> people who are interested in maintaining a specific (dev)script than
> by the needed language knowledge. ...
>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:32:28PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> >get-build-deps
> Is this an alias for "apt-get build-dep $1"?
No, it's a tool that's been long missing from a Debian as a standard
interface - "install the build-dependencies for the package in my current
directory".
This may not b
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 04:46:01PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I suspect most people who want to add something to devscripts don't
> start off by deciding that they want to do that. Instead they have an
> itch they want to scratch, they write something quick to get fix that,
> and then realize t
On 08/03/2011 23:01, Benjamin Drung wrote:
check-symbols
I always hated programs that do "sudo" (and even more those doing it
*twice*). And, isn't just unpacking the .deb and checking for ".so"
there enough? You could have undefined symbols… but that may not be
an issue most of the time, IMO.
On to, 2011-03-10 at 11:28 -0500, James Vega wrote:
> I also think that going off and writing scripts in Python when one knows
> that devscripts is a Perl and shell project is the wrong way to try to
> contribute. One generally tries to work with a project, not write a lot
> of code in a language
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 11:28 -0500, James Vega wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > On 03/09/2011 01:05 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >>> Most of the script are written in Python. Rewriting them to get them
> >>> included in devscripts is too much work without benefit. dev
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 03/09/2011 01:05 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> Most of the script are written in Python. Rewriting them to get them
>>> included in devscripts is too much work without benefit. devscripts
>>> would depend on python then.
>>
>> Most of the sc
On 03/09/2011 01:05 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Most of the script are written in Python. Rewriting them to get them
>> included in devscripts is too much work without benefit. devscripts
>> would depend on python then.
>
> Most of the scripts are short. Rewriting would be fairly simple, and
> may
Benjamin Drung writes ("Re: new scripts and patches for devscripts"):
> Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 22:28 + schrieb Ian Jackson:
> > udt-* for all applicable *, where "udt" stands for "ubuntu-dev-tools".
>
> Why? These scripts are not ubuntu
Ian Jackson writes:
> udt-* for all applicable *, where "udt" stands for "ubuntu-dev-tools".
>
[...]
> udt-mk-sbuild
This command creates a schroot with a named debian or ubuntu release,
and adds a useful section to schroot.conf. Adding "udt-" does not make
it any less misnamed. :)
--
Stig
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 22:28 + schrieb Ian Jackson:
> Benjamin Drung writes ("Re: new scripts and patches for devscripts"):
> > Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 16:42 + schrieb Ian Jackson:
> > > > add-patch
> > > > check-symbols
> &g
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 12:26 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 00:05 + schrieb Roger Leigh:
> >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:01:12PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> >> > Should these script moved from ubuntu-d
Benjamin Drung writes ("Re: new scripts and patches for devscripts"):
> Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 16:42 + schrieb Ian Jackson:
> > > add-patch
> > > check-symbols
> > > cowbuilder-dist
> > > debian-distro-info
> > > distro-info
&
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 00:05 + schrieb Roger Leigh:
>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:01:12PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>> > Should these script moved from ubuntu-dev-tools into devscripts?
>> >
>> > Most of the script are written in
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 16:42 + schrieb Ian Jackson:
> Benjamin Drung writes ("new scripts and patches for devscripts"):
> > 1. ubuntu-dev-tools contains a bunch of scripts. Some of them are useful
> > only for Ubuntu, but some of them are general usable for pac
Benjamin Drung writes ("new scripts and patches for devscripts"):
> 1. ubuntu-dev-tools contains a bunch of scripts. Some of them are useful
> only for Ubuntu, but some of them are general usable for packaging.
> These scripts are:
>
> add-patch
> check-symbols
>
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 00:05 + schrieb Roger Leigh:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:01:12PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > 1. ubuntu-dev-tools contains a bunch of scripts. Some of them are useful
> > only for Ubuntu, but some of them are general usable for packaging.
> > These scripts are:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:01:12PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> 1. ubuntu-dev-tools contains a bunch of scripts. Some of them are useful
> only for Ubuntu, but some of them are general usable for packaging.
> These scripts are:
>
> mk-sbuild
Speaking just for this script, it's a "user-friendly"
Hi,
I have two topics I like to discuss:
1. ubuntu-dev-tools contains a bunch of scripts. Some of them are useful
only for Ubuntu, but some of them are general usable for packaging.
These scripts are:
add-patch
check-symbols
cowbuilder-dist
debian-distro-info
distro-info
edit-patch
get-build-dep
41 matches
Mail list logo
