Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:35:18AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > * We can set the architecture and default flags (from policy) on the > makefile to be included, and packagers will be able to do the change > and fix any possible problems (progressive opt-in), but once it's > included by all pa

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Sun, May 10, 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this > seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of > interfaces we've mandated in Policy in the past (i.e., environment > variables, executables and command-line

Re: deprecating /usr as a standalone filesystem?

On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote: > > No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which > > is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this. > > Uhm, no? > > mount --bind /usr /usr First, you'd need a RO bind mount (yes, it exists, but your comm

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 07:00:25PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause > > aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation > > is unnecessary a

Bug#528059: ITP: area2048 -- omnidirectional shooting game

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Miriam Ruiz * Package name: area2048 Version : 1.03 Upstream Author : Jumpei Isshiki * URL : http://homepage2.nifty.com/isshiki/prog_win_d.html * License : BSD Programming Lang: D Description : omnidirectional s

Bug#528061: ITP: obexd -- OBEX client and server

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Filippo Giunchedi * Package name: obexd Version : 1.5 Upstream Author : Marcel Holtmann * URL : http://www.bluez.org/ * License : GPL, LGPL Programming Lang: C, Python Description : OBEX client and server The o

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

On Saturday 09 May 2009 00:58:56 Russ Allbery wrote: > Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation > with many of these packages by default? Normally you do get some > documentation with things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp > not including any documentation without installing

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:49:38PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli was heard to say: > On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause > > aptitude and other package managers to believe that the documentation > > is

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery was heard to say: > > I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it. > > I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian > warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally going in > the wrong direct

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli was heard to say: > I don't think that the mere fact that we changed the default behavior > of apt-get/aptitude should get in the way of that maintainer's > choice. If we used to live in a world where, by maintainer choice, doc > was no

Re: Bug#528061: ITP: obexd -- OBEX client and server

Am Sonntag 10 Mai 2009 17:36:25 schrieb Filippo Giunchedi: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Filippo Giunchedi > > * Package name: obexd > Version : 1.5 > Upstream Author : Marcel Holtmann > * URL : http://www.bluez.org/ > * License : GPL, LGPL >

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:39:21AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 06:55:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli > was heard to say: > > I don't think that the mere fact that we changed the default behavior > > of apt-get/aptitude should get in the way of that maintainer's > > choic

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this > seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of > interfaces we've mandated in Policy in the past (i.e., environment > variables, executables and command-line

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 09:54:11PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this > > seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of > > interfaces we've mandated in Policy

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote: > I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement > config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's > basically what we have here. Guillem pointed out one problem: Either you do it via a make inc

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On Saturday 09 May 2009 00:58:56 Russ Allbery wrote: >> Wouldn't our users expect to get the documentation with many of these >> packages by default? Normally you do get some documentation with >> things, and I've always been surprised by, say, ntp not including any >>

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

Hi, On Sonntag, 10. Mai 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > With the include approach, we lack this feature and bad/broken local > overrides can't be detected if we only have the build log at hand. which reminds me that we dont have build logs for probably a lot more than 25% (*) of the most used pac

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Sun, 2009-05-10 at 23:37 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote: > > I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement > > config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's > > basically what we have here

Re: deprecating /usr as a standalone filesystem?

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 08:51:33AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote: > > > No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which > > > is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this. > > > > Uhm, no? > > >

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote: > > I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement > > config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's > > basically what we ha

Bug#528110: ITP: scmbug -- Integration of Software Configuration Management with Bug-tracking.

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Kristis Makris * Package name: scmbug Version : 0.26.14 Upstream Author : Kristis Makris * URL : http://www.mkgnu.net/scmbug * License : GPL Programming Lang: Perl Description : Integration of Software Configura

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery was > heard to say: >>> I think that lintian warning is the right way to do it. >> I don't -- I think there are too many false positives for a lintian >> warning given the thread. I also think this is fundamentally go

Re: deprecating /usr as a standalone filesystem?

On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:36:02 +0200 m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and by > prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a > standalone /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth > mentioning does it (not

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

Steve Langasek writes: > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote: >> > I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement >> > config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but t

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

Bill Allombert writes: > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 09:54:11PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: >> > I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this >> > seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of >> > inter

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

Holger Levsen writes: > Hi, > > On Sonntag, 10. Mai 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> With the include approach, we lack this feature and bad/broken local >> overrides can't be detected if we only have the build log at hand. > > which reminds me that we dont have build logs for probably a lot more

Re: deprecating /usr as a standalone filesystem?

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes: > On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote: >> > No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which >> > is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this. >> >> Uhm, no? >> >> mount --bind /usr /usr > > First, you'd ne

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

Roger Lynn writes: > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 07:00:25PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:47:56PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: >> > As a practical matter, downgrading these dependencies will cause >> > aptitude and other package managers to believe that the document

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote: > If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser > and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web. > Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc/aptitude is it -doc > or just apti

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 02:02:47AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Debuild already creates a build log. I think it would be nice to > include that file in the changes file and have DAK forward it to > buildd.debian.org for archival. git-buildpackage, svn-buildpackage, > ... or even dpkg-buildp

Bug#528139: ITP: localwebfaker -- A tool for replacing legitimate websites in a LAN

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: "Lucas J. González" * Package name: localwebfaker Version : 1.0 Upstream Author : Lucas J. González * URL : http://localwebfaker.lucasj.es/ * License : GPL-3 Programming Lang: C++ Description : A tool for replac

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote: >> If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser >> and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web. >> Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/s

Building contrib packages

Hi All: I have been maintaining a contrib package which, unfortunately, depends on a non-free package, pgplot5, to be built. This invariably causes problems because contrib packages are autobuilt by the normal buildd network and some, not all, of the buildd machines do not include the non-fr

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Debuild already creates a build log. I think it would be nice to > include that file in the changes file and have DAK forward it to > buildd.debian.org for archival. git-buildpackage, svn-buildpackage, > ... or even dpkg-buildpackage

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 11:31:07PM +0200, Jens Peter Secher wrote: > +1 for ssmtp I found ssmtp couldn't cope with mail my various systems were generating, something about fixed maximum buffer lengths from memory. Not to mention . The fact that a "simple" MTA can h

Bug#528147: ITP: protobuf-c -- protocol buffers C compiler

Package: wnpp Owner: "Robert S. Edmonds" Severity: wishlist * Package name: protobuf-c Version : 0.10 Upstream Author : Dave Benson * URL : http://protobuf-c.googlecode.com/ * License : Apache 2.0 Programming Lang: C, C++ Description : protocol buffers

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:14:34PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote: If the documentation is something designed to be viewed in a web browser and the user has broadband, it is arguably easier to find it on the web. Even knowing precisely where it is[/usr/share/doc

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Sun, May 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 07:35:18AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: >> * We can set the architecture and default flags (from policy) on the >> makefile to be included, and packagers will be able to do the change >> and fix any possible problems (progress

Re: deprecating /usr as a standalone filesystem?

> On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:36:02 +0200 > m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > > > I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and > > by prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a > > standalone /usr is too much work and no other distribution worth > > mentionin

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Sun, May 10 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sun, 10 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: >> I'm really surprised to see this approach getting traction. To me, this >> seems like a significant, unprecedented departure from the kinds of >> interfaces we've mandated in Policy in the past (i.e., envi

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sun, May 10 2009, Miles Bader wrote: > Manoj Srivastava writes: >> and documentation all over the place that assumes the Debian >> default is Exim > > I think that's a weakness that should be addressed regardless of what > happens with the default. > > [Of course changing defaults is one way t

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sun, May 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 10:22:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Sat, May 09 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: > >> > On Sat, 09 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: >> >> My point is precisely that I don't think there are any salient >> >> technical advanta

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Sun, May 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote: >> > I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement >> > config files using your interpreter's 'include' f

Re: Bug#527557: general: should have a help tracker for each package

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 13:15 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: >> Hi Ritesh, >> >> thank you for your suggestion on how to improve Debian! Even though I'm >> closing this bug on the assumption that it ain't useful to report arbitary >> wishlist bugs

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Sun, 10 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I would prefer Debian to remain a full fledged member of the free > software community, and continue to not let build behaviour diverge > whether or not dpkg-buildpackage was used -- which can be a substancial > resource hog for multiple bin

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Monday 11 May 2009 00:06:09 Steve Langasek wrote: > Or maybe I've misunderstood, and there are > Debian developers who are building official packages for *upload* by > calling debian/rules by hand, and that's what people are concerned about > preserving while still getting the benefits of these

Re: deprecating /usr as a standalone filesystem?

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:32:40AM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > > On Tue, 5 May 2009 17:36:02 +0200 > > m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > > > > > I have been told by upstream maintainers of one of my packages and > > > by prominent developers of other distributions that supporting a > > >

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Sun, 10 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > If there's any intention at all that Policy eventually mandate use of > > these Makefile includes, then at a minimum I think Policy needs to > > *very* tightly constrain what dpkg is allowed to put in those files, > > to avoid future incompatibilitie

Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage

On Mon, 11 May 2009, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Well, debuild calls dpkg-buildpackage most of the time, unless you give a > specific target (which would again possibly be of interest to those who are > interested in calling debian/rules by hand for some reason). And that is also > something newis