On 04/01/2013 03:11 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> We had a move of not ubuntu-specific script from ubuntu-dev-tools 0.124
> to devscripts 2.11.0 two years ago. These scripts were add-patch,
> edit-patch, suspicious-source, what-patch, and wrap-and-sort. Maybe it's
> time to do it again.
>
> We have
For anybody who wants to hack away at an enhanced diagram for their own
*-buildpackage workflow, I've attached to my blog a copy of the raw dia file
http://danielpocock.com/sites/danielpocock.com/files/release-packaging-workflow.dia
It is shared under the GPL v3 terms
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
Am Donnerstag, den 04.04.2013, 09:33 +0200 schrieb Thomas Bechtold:
> On 04/01/2013 03:11 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > We had a move of not ubuntu-specific script from ubuntu-dev-tools 0.124
> > to devscripts 2.11.0 two years ago. These scripts were add-patch,
> > edit-patch, suspicious-source, wh
It seems that Historical Revisionism, of the bad kind, is now in
operation at Debian, in that critical commentary about unapplied patches
is made to disappear down the memory hole, without leaving so much as a
trace on the relevant bug report.
If it were thought that the criticism was unfair, or i
Hi Ian,
On Thu, April 4, 2013 12:27, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote:
> It seems that Historical Revisionism, of the bad kind, is now in
> operation at Debian, in that critical commentary about unapplied patches
> is made to disappear down the memory hole, without leaving so much as a
> trace on the
Hi Ian,
(dropping the bug in CC, as it has nothing to do with it).
Le jeudi, 4 avril 2013 12.27:01, ian_br...@fastmail.net a écrit :
> It seems that Historical Revisionism, of the bad kind, is now in
> operation at Debian, in that critical commentary about unapplied patches
> is made to disappear
On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 03:27 -0700, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote:
> It seems that Historical Revisionism, of the bad kind, is now in
> operation at Debian, in that critical commentary about unapplied patches
> is made to disappear down the memory hole, without leaving so much as a
> trace on the rel
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 13:09:30 +0200
"Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" wrote:
>> If it were thought that the criticism was unfair, or inaccurate, then
>> it could be allowed to remain in place, so that other people might
>> judge its lack of merit for themselves.
>>
>> In the case of bug #684128, post #108, h
(No need to CC me, I'm subscribed).
Le jeudi, 4 avril 2013 15.17:09, ian_br...@fastmail.net a écrit :
> When read in the context of that particular bug report, I don't see how
> it could possibly be any more relevant, since it refers directly to the
> discussion above.
I disagree: that mail start
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud, le Thu 04 Apr 2013 15:45:17 +0200, a écrit :
> (No need to CC me, I'm subscribed).
>
> Le jeudi, 4 avril 2013 15.17:09, ian_br...@fastmail.net a écrit :
> > When read in the context of that particular bug report, I don't see how
> > it could possibly be any more relevant, sin
Hi,
as a non-regular planet reader I'd like to move the discussion here. I
have read the following blog entries
[1] http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/upstream_git_repositories/
[2] http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2013-04/001.html
[3] http://thomas.goirand.fr/blog/?p=94
I personally would like
On 04/04/2013 16:00, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
as a non-regular planet reader I'd like to move the discussion here. I
have read the following blog entries
[1] http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/upstream_git_repositories/
[2] http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2013-04/001.html
[3] http://thomas
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 10:29:26PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> It seems that most reverse dependencies for iceweasel are l10n
> packages and extensions, so that one can consider them as part
> of the upgrade. The remaining dependencies seem to have a form
> like iceweasel | www-browser. So, wha
On 2013-04-04 16:00:34 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Tille wrote:
[...]
> I can not see how Joey[1] and Daniel[3] would solve these problem when
> they are not interested in upstream tarball releases any more.
It's worth pointing out, packagers should not assume just because an
upstream uses a VCS with p
On 04/04/2013 10:25 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2013-04-04 16:00:34 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Tille wrote:
> [...]
>> I can not see how Joey[1] and Daniel[3] would solve these problem when
>> they are not interested in upstream tarball releases any more.
> It's worth pointing out, packagers should
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Laurent Bigonville
* Package name: ruby-cabin
Version : 0.6.0
Upstream Author : Jordan Sissel
* URL : https://github.com/jordansissel/ruby-cabin
* License : Apache 2.0
Programming Lang: ruby
Description : Experim
On 2013-04-04 16:23:33 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 10:29:26PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > It seems that most reverse dependencies for iceweasel are l10n
> > packages and extensions, so that one can consider them as part
> > of the upgrade. The remaining dependencies s
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Laurent Bigonville
* Package name: ruby-clamp
Version : 0.5.1
Upstream Author : Mike Williams
* URL : http://github.com/mdub/clamp
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : a minimal framework for comm
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 04:11:31PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no
> tarballs (as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger
> project, it's not released independently). I stumbled (too long) on
> having a good workflow fo
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:51:38 +0200
Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> I disagree: that mail starts with a chat between "Humpty Dumpty" and
>> "Alice", which both have nothing to do with the bug at hand. There
>> was nothing in the subject or the first paragraphs of the text that
>> indicated how that story
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:05:16AM -0700, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote:
> >> I disagree: that mail starts with a chat between "Humpty Dumpty" and
> >> "Alice", which both have nothing to do with the bug at hand. There
> >> was nothing in the subject or the first paragraphs of the text that
> >> ind
ian_br...@fastmail.net, le Thu 04 Apr 2013 08:05:16 -0700, a écrit :
> > I do remember this mail, and I remember thinking "uh, spamassassin
> > missed killing that spam" without reading it all. Only the very end of
> > the mail doesn't look like spam, there's very little probability that
> > a main
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Laurent Bigonville
* Package name: ruby-arr-pm
Version : 0.0.8
Upstream Author : Jordan Sissel
* URL : https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm
* License : Apache 2.0
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : RPM reader an
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Laurent Bigonville
* Package name: ruby-backports
Version : 3.3.0
Upstream Author : Marc-André Lafortune
* URL : http://github.com/marcandre/backports
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: Ruby
Description : Backport
On 04/04/2013 12:05 PM, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote:
> Do you think there is any way that the relevance of posts to a bug
> report can be determined, without reference to the context in which they
> appear, *all the preceeding discussion*?
So far as I can see, nobody doubts your intentions. But y
Jean-Christophe Dubacq writes:
> Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no tarballs
> (as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger project, it's
> not released independently). I stumbled (too long) on having a good
> workflow for this (I ended up tagging myself the u
]]
> Which is to say, that Humpty-Dumpty's remarks are EXACTLY on point,
> especially the part about "neither more nor less."
The Debian bug tracking system is not a place for novels, novelettes or
short stories. Going on for lots of paragraphs and having your short
story be much longer than th
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:05:16AM -0700, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote:
> hard disk manufacturers, and their Debian apologists
And with that, I welcome you to my permanent blacklist.
It's one thing to engage people in constructive dialogue. It's another to
denigrate them or troll them.
Plonk. (a
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:45:55 -0300
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> Just take care in future that the style of communications you used
> triggered someone's "wetware spam filter" with a false positive.
I initially wrote up a detailed bug report, and then when somebody
suggested that the problem would get
> I do remember this mail, and I remember thinking "uh, spamassassin
> missed killing that spam" without reading it all. Only the very end of
> the mail doesn't look like spam, there's very little probability that a
> maintainer would have gone that far.
*I* did hit my "Esc-L" mutt macro on that
umbering itself. Say upstream resets their
versioning from v450 to 0.0.0, or from date based 20130404 to 0.0.0
(although the packager could have avoided that by prefixing with "0."),
or if they used something like 1.210 and they meant 1.2.10 (svgalib),
or a package takes over another's nam
On 04/05/2013 12:38 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jean-Christophe Dubacq writes:
>
>> Yesterday, however, I just had the case of a project with no tarballs
>> (as the library I wanted to package is part of a larger project, it's
>> not released independently). I stumbled (too long) on having a good
>>
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:09:27PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Also as it can be seen on the archive, once
> a version has been tainted (!?), uploaders tend to lower their
> resistance to increase the epoch even further.
But once an epoch has been added, there is (arguably?) no problems with
incr
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 04/05/2013 12:38 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Using git archive to generate a tarball from upstream is something that
>> I do in some cases as well. It all depends on upstream's release
>> process. I default to using released tarballs if they exist and are
>> useful, b
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 05:14:54PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I wonder whether there are packaged extensions […]
So you didn't actually look. EOT from me, it's wasting my time.
> > Multiple transitions then get entangled.
> I don't understand what you mean here. The freeze doesn't prevent
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Prévot
* Package name: phpseclib
Version : 0.3.1
Upstream Author : Jim Wigginton
* URL : http://phpseclib.sourceforge.net/
* License : MIT
Programming Lang: (C, C++, C#, Perl, Python, etc.)
Description : im
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:07:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Since the Debian archive needs the tarballs *anyway*, the small amount
> of additional work required to use the upstream release tarballs so that
> we're obviously consistent seems worth it.
FSVO small.
It's easy when the tarball is fi
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:07:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Since the Debian archive needs the tarballs *anyway*, the small amount
>> of additional work required to use the upstream release tarballs so
>> that we're obviously consistent seems worth it.
> FSVO sm
On 4 Apr 2013, at 20:16, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> otherwise the workflow becomes clumsier
Just to be clear, did you read Russ' blog - are you referring to the merge
trick he uses in his workflow for this purpose?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:21:44PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > otherwise the workflow becomes clumsier
> Just to be clear, did you read Russ' blog - are you referring to the merge
> trick he uses in his workflow for this purpose?
I've even owned the bug report that led to the Russ's approac
On 04/04/13 02:28 PM, ian_br...@fastmail.net wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:45:55 -0300
> Ben Armstrong wrote:
>
>> Just take care in future that the style of communications you used
>> triggered someone's "wetware spam filter" with a false positive.
>
> I initially wrote up a detailed bug repo
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:09:04 +0200
Christian PERRIER wrote:
> This mail is a very good argument to confirm that overcomplicated
> methods to make your point will just fail.
>
> If you have a point to make it, make ti. Once. With facts.
I supplied plenty of facts.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:45:26 -0300
Ben Armstrong wrote:
> the long and sordid tale of your bid to get attention for this bug
That's right; I wrote it up in detail, provided patches when asked to do
so, provided test scripts to demonstrate the correctness of those
patches, answered every question
Quoting ian_br...@fastmail.net (ian_br...@fastmail.net):
> If Debian bug report #684128 proves anything, it is that you will never
> convince anyone with technical argument, facts advanced in support of
Sorry, but Debian bug #684128 only proves one thing : that we (the D-I
team) were mostly tryin
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:00:52AM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> But once an epoch has been added, there is (arguably?) no problems with
> increasing it further.
You're not really increasing ugliness in that case, but you are
still screwing with any extant versioned relationships.
--
To UN
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Simon Fondrie-Teitler"
* Package name: python-audiolab
Version : 0.11.0
Upstream Author : David Cournapeau
* URL : https://github.com/cournape/audiolab
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: Python
Description : a p
Laurent Bigonville wrote:
>Package: wnpp
>Severity: wishlist
>Owner: Laurent Bigonville
>
>* Package name: ruby-arr-pm
> Version : 0.0.8
> Upstream Author : Jordan Sissel
>* URL : https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm
>* License : Apache 2.0
> Programming Lang: Ru
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 507 (new: 18)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 145 (new: 0)
Total number of packages reques
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:07:04PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Well, if you really want to generate these from Git, that's
> also possible (though the changelog might be quite big, so
> in some cases, I'm about to give up on that...):
>
> gen-upstream-changelog:
> git checkout master
>
49 matches
Mail list logo
