On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:59:28AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Benjamin Drung (28/01/2013):
> > Other distributions gain from your extra work. Image the
> > opposite. You want to package a software that is only available in a
> > downstream distribution (e.g. Ubuntu or Linux Mint). Do you pref
Gergely Nagy, 2013-01-28 09:44:18 +0100 :
[...]
> By harmful side effects, I mean two things:
[...]
> - Patches not separated
Not quite true. You can still have debian/patches/* and apply them at
build-time (dpatch or quilt), even if they're not shipped in a separate
.diff.gz file.
Roland.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:25:38AM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Hi Hilko,
>
> Hilko Bengen writes:
> > This is a pity for those of us who don't really subscribe to "get
> > everything from github as needed" model of distributing software.
> Yes, but at the same time, it makes Go much more c
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Gergely Nagy
>
>> No, not really. I don't really care what tools one uses, as long as the
>> result is reasonably easy *and* reliable to work with. Since VCS can be
>> stale, and quite often does not include neither NMUs, nor backports,
>> that fails the reliable req
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 07:16:44PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> >> Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote on his blog[0]:
>> >>
>> >> >Generally if software is useful in Debian Project it
Roland Mas writes:
> Gergely Nagy, 2013-01-28 09:44:18 +0100 :
>
> [...]
>
>> By harmful side effects, I mean two things:
> [...]
>> - Patches not separated
>
> Not quite true. You can still have debian/patches/* and apply them at
> build-time (dpatch or quilt), even if they're not shipped in
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 09:44:43AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:25:38AM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > Hi Hilko,
> >
> > Hilko Bengen writes:
> > > This is a pity for those of us who don't really subscribe to "get
> > > everything from github as needed" model o
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:50:29AM +0400, Oleg wrote:
> ~# update-grub
> Searching for GRUB installation directory ... found: /boot/grub
> Searching for default file ... Generating /boot/grub/default file and setting
> the default boot entry to 0
> entry not specified.
> Usage: grub-set-default [
Am Montag, den 28.01.2013, 22:53 -0600 schrieb Peter Samuelson:
> [Benjamin Drung]
> > Image the opposite. You want to package a software that is only
> > available in a downstream distribution (e.g. Ubuntu or Linux
> > Mint). Do you prefer to have a non-native format or a native format?
>
> If th
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:13:14PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:50:29AM +0400, Oleg wrote:
> > ~# update-grub
> > Searching for GRUB installation directory ... found: /boot/grub
> > Searching for default file ... Generating /boot/grub/default file and
> > setting the de
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> I wasn't trying to imply that my idea was new. :-)
Sorry. :) I wasn't clear enough that I figured you probably knew the
history.
> Yes, this is a lot of work, and I'm not sure what the best way to go
> about it would be. On the other hand, I think we're not actually
On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 19:16:44 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote on his blog[0]:
> > Generally if software is useful in Debian Project it can be useful
> > for other debian-like and unlike projects. In particular native
> > packages do not offer the same patching flexibility as 3.0
Guillem Jover writes:
> I don't really see the problem here, if you are going to patch the
> package you might as well do the one line change from "3.0 (native)" to
> "3.0 (quilt)", and rename the source tarball to add «.orig».
> One of the issues with native packages before format 3.0, was that
Hi Wouter,
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> "consistency across multiple platforms" has been claimed as a benefit
> for allowing "gem update --system" to replace half of the ruby binary
> package, amongst other things. It wasn't a good argument then, and it
> isn't a good argument now.
I am not familiar
On 30/01/2013 05:57, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> I am not familiar with the Ruby situation, I only know that many Ruby
> developers seem to be very angry at Debian people. Is there a summary of
> the events that I could read?
I'm not very familiar with the situation myself, but the gist of it, as
Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Maybe I forgot the answer, but at least in terms of git and the dpkg
> > 3.0 (git) format, why can't we simply make use of shallow cloning?
>
> At which point you have lost all the advantages of shipping the
> repository that Tollef mentioned, as far as I can tell. You'r
On 01/28/2013 07:30 PM, Philip Hands wrote:
> You're going to have to do a lot better than saying that you don't like
> it very much if you're going to convince me that Joey's mistaken in that
> choice
Hi Phil,
Thanks for sharing your view (and the one of Joe).
I also maintain at least one native
17 matches
Mail list logo
