On 05/17/2012 04:52 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Chris Knadle writes:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 06:38:49, Adam Borowski wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:10:28AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 03:17:17PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> No, I hereby start saying
Hi there!
On Tue, 15 May 2012 01:10:19 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 14 Mai 2012, Clint Adams wrote:
>> dpkg-source is more intolerant of fuzz than quilt itself.
>> Run quilt refresh on the patch and it should be happier.
>
> Ar ... is this on purpose? Or by chance? Or to drive
> d
18.05.2012 00:11, Russ Allbery пишет:
> Tollef Fog Heen writes:
>> ]] Russ Allbery
>
>>> If I were to pick between the enhancements to Debian in this area, none
>>> of which I have time to work on and therefore can't vote on via
>>> implementation, I'd be way more interested in avoiding the enti
Hi,
Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist. What
should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them for the
case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a few
packages. Most of them got removed because newer versions wer
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist.
> What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them
> for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a
> few pa
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 06:23:49PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> Another thing I've seen with another package I'm working on in collaboration
> is using a Git repo in which the only contents are the debian/ files and not
> the original source tarball nor source files at all. To do a built the
>
On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:50:12 +0800
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>
> > Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist.
> > What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep
> > them for the case, a pack
Daniel Leidert (18/05/2012):
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer)
> exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea
> to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might
> happen only for a few packages. Most of them got remo
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:24:04AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 05/17/2012 04:52 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> >> I'm confused concerning the above; the point of a VCS in this context is
> >> to
> >> track changes to the source package, and the patches are themselves
> >> important
> >> changes
]] Igor Pashev
> What about stable release? Git branches?
Sure. Branches are cheap.
> What about users who want rebuild a package (probably with new patches)?
They'll then just grab the git tree, apply their patches, build their
package.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just p
Hello,
On Fri, 18 May 2012 11:37:08 +0200
Adam Borowski wrote:
> Quilt is a kind of really primitive VCS. It does not make sense to
> use both it and a modern one, and when someone tries, this ends up
> with no end of woe. Quilt sprinkles its modifications around the
> source, breaks timestamp
Excerpts from David Kalnischkies's message of Thu May 17 18:21:59 +0200 2012:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Michal Suchanek
> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
> >> Michal Suchanek writes ("Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is
> >>
Michal Suchanek writes:
> Excerpts from Ian Jackson's message of Thu May 17 14:53:30 +0200 2012:
>> Michal Suchanek writes ("Re: Bug#671503: general: APT repository format is
>> not documented"):
>> > Excerpts from Filipus Klutiero's message of Wed May 16 18:44:21 +0200 2012:
>> > > Could you cl
"Daniel Leidert" writes:
> Hi,
>
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer)
> exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea
> to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might
> happen only for a few packages. Most of them got
CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT
repository format is not documented"):
> Michal Suchanek writes:
> > [ discussions regarding documenting the apt repository format ]
>
> I would suggest you look at existing reposi
Jon Dowland writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:38:49PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> It is true that 3.0 (quilt) does have a great downside, quilt, but it also
>> has a number of upsides. And working around quilt is simple:
>>
>> echo "single-debian-patch" >debian/source/options
>> echo "/.p
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 07:45:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > Also, it is very sad that, as a project, we can not decide whether we go
> > for 3.0 (git) or not, or have a concrete list of resolvable objections
> > from the people whose work is direclty impacted by t
Chris Knadle writes:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 06:38:49, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:10:28AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 03:17:17PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
>> > > No, I hereby start saying good by to 3.0
>> >
>> > I'm hoping we can revi
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:02:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
>
> Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT
> repository format is not documented"):
> > Michal Suchanek writes:
> > > [ discussions regarding documenting the
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:16:40PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 11:37:08 +0200
> Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Quilt is a kind of really primitive VCS. It does not make sense to
> > use both it and a modern one, and when someone tries,
>
> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but quilt
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
> James McCoy writes:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
>>> Unpatching the sources *before* the build process was cleaned up makes
>>> no sense to me at all. Could you provide a use case for that?
>> As was descri
Roger Leigh writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:38:14PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> That just leaves the question of wether dpkg uses uid/gid or symbolic
>> names when unpacking debs.
>
> I think this one is clear: it must be symbolic since the uids/gids
> aren't static. Unless you wa
"Daniel Leidert" writes:
> Hi,
>
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist.
> What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them
> for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a
> few packages. Most of them
+++ Mehdi Dogguy [2012-05-16 16:24 +0200]:
> On 16/05/12 13:41, Wookey wrote:
> >is there any reason not to just upload this to Debian?
>
> There are ITPs filed for it:
> - http://bugs.debian.org/582884
> - http://bugs.debian.org/576359
Yes. I discovered that when I went to file an ITP :-)
It tu
Hi,
Le 18/05/12 13:46, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>> This works only for the special case that "build" does not change any
>> source file. Otherwise you would also commit the changed source files.
>
> And it better not. There is no excuse for changing source files during
> build. If you need
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:38:40PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:02:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > CC'ing the apt list de...@lists.debian.org.
> >
> > Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Bug#481129: Bug#671503: general: APT
> > repository format is not documente
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:27:50PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 07:45:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Charles Plessy writes:
> >
> > > Also, it is very sad that, as a project, we can not decide whether we go
> > > for 3.0 (git) or not, or have a concrete list of resol
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
>> James McCoy writes:
>>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:23:05PM +0200, Olе Streicher wrote:
Unpatching the sources *before* the build process was cleaned up makes
no sense to me at all. Could you provide a
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:38:40PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I do not think that APT is responsible for the repository format. The
> repository format is defined by ftpmaster, not by APT. APT has to my
> knowledge not defined anything new, but only implemented changes to
> the repository
Hi,
2012/5/18 Daniel Leidert :
> Hi,
>
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist.
> What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them
> for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a
> few packages. Most of
On Thu, 17 May 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 07:23 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Well, FWIW postfix allows you to override all MTA notifications, not just
> > bounce messages, but the full set. We do that at work.
> >
> Interesting. Can you post an example here?
man
On Fri, 18 May 2012, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:16:40PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 May 2012 11:37:08 +0200
> > Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > Quilt is a kind of really primitive VCS. It does not make sense to
> > > use both it and a modern one, and when someone
FWIW
posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
Thanks
Michal
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1337349939-sup-8...@virtual.ruk.cuni.
* Adam Borowski [120518 11:37]:
> You complain about forcing people to use git, while you push quilt onto
> everyone else.
> [...]
>
> I really wish there was a "3.0" format besides "3.0 (quilt)", so people are
> not mislead into thinking they have to (or even, would gain anything) from
> writing
On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:34:40 +0100
"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/5/18 Daniel Leidert :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist.
> > What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep
> > them for the
2012/5/18 Neil Williams :
> There's a big difference between these bugs and the rest - here there
> are clear migration paths to later packages which can be used to triage
> the bug reports in order not to lose reports. A lot of the rest *can*
> be closed without more triage work because the packag
Le vendredi 18 mai 2012 17:41:55, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo a écrit :
> 2012/5/18 Neil Williams :
> > There's a big difference between these bugs and the rest - here there
> > are clear migration paths to later packages which can be used to triage
> > the bug reports in order not to lose report
2012/5/18 Thomas Preud'homme :
> According to [1] salome is not part of any debian release now. Did I miss
> something? IIRW, for package still in stable, if the -done mail contains the
> right version then the bug will still be visible as long as it affects stable.
Oh yes, egroupware only in olds
On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:41:55 +0100
"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" wrote:
> Another question, perhaps unrelated is, what happens with the bugs
> closed from egroupware or salome (removed from unstable/testing but
> still present in stable releases) when their users look for them in
> the BTS? Th
Guillem Jover wrote:
> Only as long as the debian/control information matches the one from
> the archive override.
I checked, and currently the only base package with an overridden priority
is libsigc++-2.0-0c2a
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/18/2012 11:37 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:24:04AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> On 05/17/2012 04:52 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
I'm confused concerning the above; the point of a VCS in this context
is to track c
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> FWIW
>
> posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
>
> Thanks
>
> Michal
I have now documented the Contents indices and the diffs
as well, mostly (sans the exact format we use for the
patches), and Translation
While this has been an interesting thread, it may be predicated on a
false premise. I examined the latest weekly CD build, and the reason no
desktop tasks at all (even lxde or xfce) appear on their respective CDs
is because debian-cd is simply not including tasksel's new task-*
packages, at all.
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> FWIW
>
> posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
What's the opinion about the flat repository format, where you
just have one directory with Release, Packages, Sources, and
friends and no sub-directories?
Shou
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 06:45:00PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Julian Andres Klode [2012-05-18 13:38 +0200]:
>
> > We currently have three independent implementations of the repository
> > format in the archive: APT, cupt, smartpm.
>
> I think reprepro is another?
Of course, I was just only talk
+++ Julian Andres Klode [2012-05-18 13:38 +0200]:
> We currently have three independent implementations of the repository
> format in the archive: APT, cupt, smartpm.
I think reprepro is another?
/usr/share/doc/reprepro/manual.html contains a 'repository basics'
section which includes useful la
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 08:12:16PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> The formatting is not consistent but that will have to be changed for
> docbook anyway.
Yes, and it will also be more readable then, than the current wiki
version.
>
> Also would need some proof-reading. If nothing else somebody
Excerpts from Julian Andres Klode's message of Fri May 18 18:49:10 +0200 2012:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > FWIW
> >
> > posted on the wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/RepositoryFormat
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Michal
>
> I have now documented the Contents ind
Hi!
On 18.05.2012 10:50, Paul Wise wrote:
Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist. What
should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them for the
case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a few
packages. Most of th
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
> When it is time to release/upload, the branch gets git format-patch'd,
> and makes its way to debian/patches for 3.0(quilt) to handle. That
> branch is never published. git-pq can automate this stuff in an even
> better way that is rebase-less if you want,
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:27:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Only as long as the debian/control information matches the one from
> > the archive override.
>
> I checked, and currently the only base package with an overridden priority
> is libsigc++-2.0-0c2a
So, would it b
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> What's the opinion about the flat repository format, where you
> just have one directory with Release, Packages, Sources, and
> friends and no sub-directories?
>
> Should they be documented as well then? We would then have two
> kind o
Hi Peter,
Thanks for bringing up this issue again. Admittedly, there hasn't been much
progress since it was discussed last year.
Hopefully, the discussion has focused on a solution to completely avoid the
problem during upgrades.
For the general issue, the only progress I made was in the form o
Le Wed, May 16, 2012 at 07:45:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > Also, it is very sad that, as a project, we can not decide whether we go
> > for 3.0 (git) or not, or have a concrete list of resolvable objections
> > from the people whose work is direclty impacted b
Le Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:56:07AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> In the case of the initial copryight review, which is if I understand well the
> strongest objection, wouldn't it be solved if the first upload to Debian would
> contain as few history as possible ? Then the quantity of histor
Le Fri, May 18, 2012 at 06:49:10PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode a écrit :
>
> In a few months, I'd like to rework this in DocBook form, and submit it to
> debian-policy for inclusion into official Policy, as a sub-policy like
> copyright-format.
Dear Julian and everybody,
thank you for this docume
]] Roger Leigh
> I think this is a key point. The aim of the git format should not be
> provide the entire history, any more than the other formats do (not).
>
> What should be provided needs to be
> - sufficient to build the package
> - sufficient to determine the changes made between the Upst
Hi, List,
One of my packages [1] failed to build on armel, kfreebsd and hurd,
But I don't have such a machine to test my packages. Is it possible
to use debian porterbox to build the package and dig into this
problem ?
[1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=spice-vdagent
Thanks and
Charles Plessy writes:
> How about integrating it with the Policy's chapter 5 (thus enlarging its
> scope) instead of having it as a separate document ? That would help to
> underline when a field is used in the same way or differently as in the
> package control data files.
The primary reason
Package: general
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
Recently, I have upgrade packages xorg, xserver-xorg, xserver-xorg-input-all
and
x11-common from 7.6+12 to 7.6+13.
After that, my desktop environment was always dead that cpu of X became 70% and
cpu of gnome-shell occupy the other 30%.
A
60 matches
Mail list logo
