On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:19:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > From what concerns the BTS, Don's proposal in [2] (the main one, not
> > the alternative solution) seems reasonable to me and others in the
> > thread. The proposal also seems to assu
Hi,
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
> > I think that having an official "rolling" release always available would
> > reduce the pressure of maintainers to always push the latest into the next
> > stable release precisely because there's an alternative... so it would
> > rather help concernin
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 05:17:36PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> I'm not against having a constant useable testing, on the contrary. I
> just don't see why we want to choose for working around the problems we
> currently have with testing instead of fixing them for everyone.
You seem to be basing your
* Joachim Breitner [100926 21:45]:
> Let me rephrase Reinhard:
> what's the problem with requiring the build-arch and build-indep target
> for all packages in debian after squeeze release?
Most packages do not have build-arch and build-indep. (Mostly due to
dh_make not including them for single p
Raphael Hertzog, 2010-09-27 10:16:50 +0200 :
[...]
>> > Again it's unrelated to the existence of rolling, the problem is
>> > inactive maintainer not taking care of their packages and those are
>> > not the same that would actively push their packages to rolling.
>>
>> What do you base this on?
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Roland Mas wrote:
> >> What do you base this on? It does not at all seem clear to me that
> >> rolling would not introduce maintainers who only care about rolling.
> >
> > Nobody can predict the future... but my take is that the people who
> > only care about rolling would
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> But this whole discussion got boring something like 10 years ago. It's
> a shame there is still no proper solution for that now.
Yeah, the only one who submitted code has been Bill Allombert and he did
it without following my recommendations so I have
* Raphael Hertzog [100927 14:28]:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > But this whole discussion got boring something like 10 years ago. It's
> > a shame there is still no proper solution for that now.
>
> Yeah, the only one who submitted code has been Bill Allombert and he did
> it
Raphael Hertzog, 2010-09-27 14:21:12 +0200 :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Roland Mas wrote:
>> >> What do you base this on? It does not at all seem clear to me that
>> >> rolling would not introduce maintainers who only care about rolling.
>> >
>> > Nobody can predict the future... but my take i
Dear list,
I'm sorry for disturbing all of you but I'm currently facing the problem that
the maintainer of the Debian sendmail package, Richard A Nelson, seems to be
lost. He does not react to bug reports nor mails concerning the libmilter
package which is used by some other software. Please if an
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> From the whole discussion, relying on Standards-Version was not well
> accepted so the only sane way of doing it (and parsing make's output is
> not sane enough for me, even if debhelper does it) is to have the
> package explicitly record that it provides the required su
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: IOhannes m zmoelnig
* Package name: v4l2loopback
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : IOhannes m zmoelnig
* URL : http://github.com/umlaeute/v4l2loopback/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : v4l2loopbac
I'm trying turn an Eclipse CDT (C/C++ Developer Tools) managed build project
into a Debian package and am having a lot of trouble. Since it's a managed
build project, I can't simply run make. Eclipse can start a build from the
command line (as described at
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34479
Roland Mas wrote:
> At least for some packages, it's hard enough ensuring a more-or-less
> pleasant experience in a stable release; trying to provide it on a
> moving target is *much* more work, especially if one must support
> upgrades from any version younger than X months (as has been
> sugges
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 02:40:59PM -0400, Josh Kelley wrote:
> I'm trying turn an Eclipse CDT (C/C++ Developer Tools) managed build project
> into a Debian package and am having a lot of trouble. Since it's a managed
> build project, I can't simply run make. Eclipse can start a build from the
> c
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 02:40:59PM -0400, Josh Kelley wrote:
> > I'm trying turn an Eclipse CDT (C/C++ Developer Tools) managed build
> project
> > into a Debian package and am having a lot of trouble. Since it's a
> managed
> > build project
Joey Hess, 2010-09-27 15:26:10 -0400 :
> Roland Mas wrote:
>> At least for some packages, it's hard enough ensuring a more-or-less
>> pleasant experience in a stable release; trying to provide it on a
>> moving target is *much* more work, especially if one must support
>> upgrades from any versi
Hi Roland,
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Roland Mas wrote:
>> Well, we know that fully 27% of popcon-reporting users already use
>> unstable or testing. So in general, developers already have an incentive
>> to keep unstable and testing usable for those users, not just stable.
>
> I'm fine wi
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > The not-so-evident part is that I want the syntax of this field to be
> > sufficiently extensible so that we can encode more information like
> > support of hardening build flags and similar stuff that we might want to
> > know to adjust the behaviour at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2010-09-27 20:40, Josh Kelley wrote:
> I'm trying turn an Eclipse CDT (C/C++ Developer Tools) managed build project
> into a Debian package and am having a lot of trouble. Since it's a managed
> build project, I can't simply run make. Eclipse ca
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> ...it gets derailed by this feature request for Build-Features, which a
>> lot of people are much more dubious about (myself, for example: I think
>> hardening flags should be handled similarly to parallel build flags,
>> not v
Russ Allbery (27/09/2010):
> The only other proposed solution in the bug was to just require
> build-arch/build-indep, and I think that would be more disruptive.
Do we have numbers here? From another mail, it looks like a while
back, only a minority of packages was affected. Sounds like something
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Russ Allbery (27/09/2010):
>> The only other proposed solution in the bug was to just require
>> build-arch/build-indep, and I think that would be more disruptive.
> Do we have numbers here? From another mail, it looks like a while
> back, only a minority of packages w
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 02:27:20PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > But this whole discussion got boring something like 10 years ago. It's
> > a shame there is still no proper solution for that now.
>
> Yeah, the only one who submitted code has been
[ adding MIA to Cc, for further inquiries, and the maintainer himself ]
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 06:33:05PM +0200, Harald Jenny wrote:
> I'm sorry for disturbing all of you but I'm currently facing the problem that
> the maintainer of the Debian sendmail package, Richard A Nelson, seems to be
> los
Roger Leigh writes:
> Unless I missed it in a previous discussion, I can't see what's wrong
> with simply mandating support with a new Standards-Version as Bernhard
> suggested. Could you elaborate on why Build-Features seems preferable
> since this appears to be a simple and easily implementabl
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >From the whole discussion, relying on Standards-Version was not well
> accepted so the only sane way of doing it (and parsing make's output
> is not sane enough for me, even if debhelper does it)
Debhelper can get away with using make -n in one case, and parsing make
-p o
On 09/27/2010 10:14 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 06:33:05PM +0200, Harald Jenny wrote:
>> I'm sorry for disturbing all of you but I'm currently facing the problem that
>> the maintainer of the Debian sendmail package, Richard A Nelson, seems to be
>> lost. He does not re
Adam Borowski wrote:
> # Hairy, but safe against locales and changed error messages.
> make -f /dev/null build-indep 2>unique-tmp-1
> (debian/rules build-indep && rm unique-tmp-1) 3>&1 1>&2 2>&3 |tee unique-tmp-2
> cmp -s unique-tmp-1 unique-tmp-2
> case $? in
> 0) echo "The build-indep target do
On 27/09/10 at 10:14 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:19:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > From what concerns the BTS, Don's proposal in [2] (the main one, not
> > > the alternative solution) seems reasonable to me
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 06:36:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote:
> > # Hairy, but safe against locales and changed error messages.
>
> This fails in cases where the makefile emits something to stderr when
> setting a variable, which can happen even for non-existing rules.
> Makefi
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Perhaps you could convince your upstream of using a non-eclipse build
> system with eclipse plugin support (e.g. autotools using the integration
> plugin provided by the LinuxTools project[1]).
>
Thanks. I'll investigate that if I don't ha
32 matches
Mail list logo
