Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org):
(following up on Steve's mail but that's more a summary of my own
feelings about this topic)
> Fundamentally, I don't think that's a responsible decision for the dpkg
> maintainers to make. You're making busywork for maintainers, and conflict
> for you
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 01:21:29PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Mike Hommey]
> > There is a general problem with fuse, actually. fuse-utils is needed by
> > any program using libfuse and allowing users (i.e not root) to mount a
> > filesystem: In this case, libfuse uses fusemount to do the m
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 11:13:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:11:12PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > > You mean like the existing pages on buildd.debian.org? You just need to
> > > feed them the list of affected p
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> make all the developers manually add this file now so that, at some
> point when all packages have the file, the default can be changed and a
> different set of packages can remove the file again.
During the discussion in this thread I realized that cha
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> Instead what I want is to remove the default altogether so that 1.0 is
> no longer implicitly blessed/recommended.
As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in “1.0” source
format” since t
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> The BTS supports filing bugs against source packages, so you also
> file against the version of the source package. A FTBFS bug is now
> almost always reported against the source package, including binNMUs.
That's good for reporting FTBFS but users findin
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2010-03-26, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > That said I think those transition repositories are going to be more used
> > (and thus tested) than experimental because they are targeted. Users who
> > want to test the latest KDE or Gnome will happily add such
]] Christian Perrier
[...]
| The next debate to have will come when it's time to change the default
| behaviour of dpkg-source. That debate has been mixed into the current
| discussion and is probably what makes it quite hairy It is very
| obviously controversial to decide when to change the
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Ben Finney wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
>
> > Instead what I want is to remove the default altogether so that 1.0 is
> > no longer implicitly blessed/recommended.
>
> As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
> ‘debian/source/format’ always
Ben Finney wrote:
Hi,
> As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
> ‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in “1.0” source
The problem is that if debian/source/format is missing for one reason or
another, your package will be silently built as a 1.0 so
On 2010-03-28, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> With old buildd, it was always possible to add this bug # after the
> fact. I don't know what the case is with new buildd/new wanna-build, but
> it might be a good idea to look into that...
That hasn't changed. It's mildly annoying though that you cannot d
#include
* Raphael Hertzog [Sun, Mar 28 2010, 10:51:38AM]:
> > As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
> > ‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in “1.0” source
> > format” since that has no implication that “1.0” is blessed or
> > recommended in any
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> I, for one, consider abusing Lintian checks for "recommendations" a very
> bad idea. Especially if you use _warnings_ for that. To warn about what?
To warn about future failures once dpkg-source fails when there's no
debian/source/format.
Cheers,
--
Rap
> ries.debian.org, the host behind ftp-master.debian.org, has hardware
> trouble, a failed memory module keeps resetting the machine at random
> intervals.
We seem to have more than one broken module, as we already asked
local admins to take DIMMs out, and then got another random reboot. The
suppo
Hi,
since GNOME 2.30 is the target for squeeze, there are a few remaining
transitions to set up. If we do them all at once, it will become an
awful nightmare and might delay the release, so they must be sequenced
in order.
*I urge anyone maintaining packages in the following lists to not upload
t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Chris Butler
[this module is a new(ish) dependency for one of the programs in
xmltv-util, I'd like to get it into Debian to satisfy that. I also
thought I'd add it to the Debian Perl Group if that's OK...]
* Package name: liblinux-dvb-perl
Version
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:29:21AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> So, please bear with us, people are working on the issue, and we will
> keep you informed about it.
Thanks a lot for the steady info flow and for this "emergency" work.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ P
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 09:28:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 11:13:20PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:11:12PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > > > You mean like the existing pages on b
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Version: N/A; reported 2010-03-28
* Package name : libprojectbuilder-perl
Version: 0.9.8
Upstream Author : Bruno Cornec
* URL: http://www.project-builder.org
* License: GPL
Description: Perl module providing multi-OSes (Linux/Solaris/...)
Continuous Packaging
Pro
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Italo Valcy
Owner: Italo Valcy
* Package name: php-http-webdav-client
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : Hartmut Holzgraefe
* URL : http://pear.php.net/package/HTTP_WebDAV_Client/
* License : PHP
Programming Lang: PHP
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Ben Finney wrote:
> > As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with
> > “absence of ‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in
> > “1.0” source format” since that has no implication that “1.0” is
> > blessed or recommended i
Julien BLACHE writes:
> The problem is that if debian/source/format is missing for one reason
> or another, your package will be silently built as a 1.0 source
> package.
There's no need for it to be silent. The idea was raised that, after a
period of silent deprecation, the recognition of sourc
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Johan De Taeye
* Package name: frepple
Version : 0.8.0
Upstream Author : Johan De Taeye
* URL : http://www.frepple.com
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C++, Python
Description : Free Production Planning Librar
23 matches
Mail list logo
