Hello,
FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
to ACCEPTED.
Of course this does not mean that the DEP-3 can't be extended or improved
(in particular when it doesn't break backwards compatibili
Detta utskick är skapat i HTML, ditt e-postprogram stöder inte detta.
Läs brevet på nedanstående adress:
http://www.epmf.se/300084/open/r.asp?k=98851&i=4&c=54PLLEE1LL&h=8
Hi,
> FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
> well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
> to ACCEPTED.
just because that you didn't get any reports you should not set a status
to ACCEPTED. IMHO the driver of a DEP should not do that
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Hey,
I'm letting go of stereograph, a stereogram generator - i.e. the things
you might know from _The Magic Eye_ book that was hip several years
back, pictures that contain a 3-D image if you squit and it just right.
Hasn't had a new upstream release in almost a de
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 03:07:08PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> just because that you didn't get any reports you should not set a status
> to ACCEPTED. IMHO the driver of a DEP should not do that at all, at
> least not without asking on common lists first. No reaction on your DEP
> could just mean
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> just because that you didn't get any reports you should not set a status
> to ACCEPTED. IMHO the driver of a DEP should not do that at all, at
> least not without asking on common lists first. No reaction on your DEP
> could just mean that people con
On 2012-01-16 15:02, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Does anyone have further comments about DEP-3? If so, please state
them. Otherwise, let's forget about the process details (no matter
if
they could have been better or not) and rejoice for a nice standard
way
of adding useful metadata to patches
Jonathan Wiltshire, 2012-01-16 17:01+0100:
> It is only a small thing but I did not realise DEP-3 was still a
> candidate or I would have spoken earlier. A CVE field, mandatory if a
> CVE has been published for this patch and is the major component of this
> patch, would allow easy tracing of pa
On 2012-01-16 16:43, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
Jonathan Wiltshire, 2012-01-16 17:01+0100:
It is only a small thing but I did not realise DEP-3 was still a
candidate or I would have spoken earlier. A CVE field, mandatory if
a
CVE has been published for this patch and is the major component of
this
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:14:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
> well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
> to ACCEPTED.
>
> Of course this does not mean that the DEP-3 can't be extended or
On 01/16/2012 07:14 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello,
>
> FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
> well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
> to ACCEPTED.
>
> Of course this does not mean that the DEP-3 can't be extended or improved
On 16/01/12 18:33, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Also, does this mean that you've patched the policy, that lintian
would soon more aggressively complain about lacks of patch comments,
and that we'll have a new Standard-Version?
Lintian already complains when a quilt patch doesn't contain a
descriptio
* Raphael Hertzog , 2012-01-16, 12:14:
FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's
already well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from
CANDIDATE to ACCEPTED.
Does a DEP-3 parser exist? And why not?
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel
Jon Dowland writes ("Re: Patch Tagging Guidelines: DEP-3 moved to ACCEPTED
status"):
> Who should have that authority, then? The DEP-0 proposers? Since
> the whole DEP process itself is still in CANDIDATE, we could end up
> in an interesting situation if/when it comes to migrate *that* to
> ACCEP
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I'm really not sure what makes you authoritative for it though,
> and I'd like to understand (which doesn't conflict with the fact
> I'm happy dep3 is in state ACCEPTED, and that you decided to
> do it!).
I just did it as the DEP driver because I believ
On 01/17/2012 01:56 AM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 16/01/12 18:33, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>> Also, does this mean that you've patched the policy, that lintian
>> would soon more aggressively complain about lacks of patch comments,
>> and that we'll have a new Standard-Version?
>>
>
> Lintian alread
On 01/17/2012 01:44 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:14:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
>> FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
>> well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
>> to ACCEPTED.
>>
>> Of cours
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kamal Mostafa
* Package name: duff
Version : 0.5
Upstream Author : Camilla Berglund
* URL : http://duff.sourceforge.net/
* License : Zlib
Programming Lang: C
Description : Duplicate file finder
Duff is a comman
Kamal Mostafa, le Mon 16 Jan 2012 12:58:13 -0800, a écrit :
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Kamal Mostafa
>
>
> * Package name: duff
> Version : 0.5
> Upstream Author : Camilla Berglund
> * URL : http://duff.sourceforge.net/
> * License : Zlib
>
Hi,
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > * Package name: duff
> > Version : 0.5
> > Upstream Author : Camilla Berglund
> > * URL : http://duff.sourceforge.net/
> > * License : Zlib
> > Programming Lang: C
> > Description : Duplicate file finder
> >
> > Duff is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi there!
I just wanted to ask how mature Package-format 3.0 (git) became until now.
BR,
Björn.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iF4EAREIAAYFAk8Une4AC
>> What is it the benefit over fdupes, rdfind, ...?
> ..., hardlink, ...
finddup from perforate
> Was thinking about packaging it myself already, so I may also sponsor
> Kamal's package when it's ready.
You just listed the third duplicate (and me no. 4), and still go blind
right on "ohoh, i spon
2012/1/17 Björn Esser:
> I just wanted to ask how mature Package-format 3.0 (git) became until now.
It is not currently accepted by the Debian archive:
http://bugs.debian.org/642801
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.or
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 23:07 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> What is it the benefit over fdupes, rdfind, ...?
> > ..., hardlink, ...
> finddup from perforate
After a quick evaluation of the various "find dupe files" tools, I was
attracted to try duff because:
1. It looked easier to use than the o
Le Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:14:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
> well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
> to ACCEPTED.
>
> Of course this does not mean that the DEP-3 can't be extend
Dear all,
I have already promoted a couple of times on this list the idea of gathering
(meta) data about Upstream in the source package, more precisely in the
repository where the source package is developed.
http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata
There was not much progress in 2011, but work
I would encourage you to merge your efforts with DEP-11 so that the
upstream metadata can also be made available via apt.
Personally I never understood why you decided to use a file separate
to debian/control for this metadata.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Thomas Goirand writes:
> Also, does this mean that you've patched the policy, that lintian would
> soon more aggressively complain about lacks of patch comments, and that
> we'll have a new Standard-Version?
No. DEP-3 is an optional standard.
I'm not sure if it should be incorporated into Poli
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> 2012/1/5 Paul Wise :
>> In my opinion it is a pretty ugly hack that we should discourage where
>> possible.
>
> There is a trade-off to consider between patching every single webapp,
> having no writable location at all and placing files wher
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 08:09:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> I would encourage you to merge your efforts with DEP-11 so that the
> upstream metadata can also be made available via apt.
>
> Personally I never understood why you decided to use a file separate
> to debian/control for this metadata.
also sprach Kamal Mostafa [2012.01.17.0049 +0100]:
> In my humble opinion, that would be an unreasonable pre-condition for
> inclusion in Debian. Our standard for inclusion should not be that a
> new package must be "vastly better" than other similar packages. That
> would deny a new package the
Le Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 08:09:25AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
>
> I would encourage you to merge your efforts with DEP-11 so that the
> upstream metadata can also be made available via apt.
>
> Personally I never understood why you decided to use a file separate
> to debian/control for this metada
32 matches
Mail list logo
