Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Michael Fladischer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
* Package name: python-django-split-settings
Version : 0.3.0
Upstream Author : Nikita Sobolev, Visa Kopu, Antti Kaihola
* URL : https://github.com/sobolevn/djang
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:37:59PM +0900, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> On the more general topic, I believe there should be room for new tools to
> emerge and not-being-dh should never be a RC or even important bug.
My thoughts exactly.
I think at this point we can recommend dh, and require debh
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 07:53:34PM -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
> I wrote a dedicated section about reproducibility:
> https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/deeplearning-policy#neural-network-reproducibility
nice, very!
Though you dont specify what 'reproducible' means. Given your last line
in this email (see
Hi Holger,
Yes, that section is about bit-by-bit reproducibility,
and identical hashsum is expected. Let's call it
"Bit-by-Bit reproducible".
I updated that section to make the definition
of "reproducible" explicit. And the strongest one
is discussed by default.
However, I'm not sure whether "bi
On May 22, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I think at this point we can recommend dh, and require debhelper (i.e.,
> the individual dh_* tools could be required to be part of the build
> system, but how they are called can be left to a maintainer's
> discretion, with the assumption that "you use dh or p
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:35:20AM -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
> Yes, that section is about bit-by-bit reproducibility,
> and identical hashsum is expected. Let's call it
> "Bit-by-Bit reproducible".
cool!
> I updated that section to make the definition
> of "reproducible" explicit.
thank you!
> How
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Thomas Goirand
* Package name: puppet-module-debian-archvsync
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : Thomas Goirand
* URL :
https://salsa.debian.org/openstack-team/puppet/puppet-module-debian-archvsync
* License : GPL-3
Pr
Hi Alastair
Also, I plan to push 12.1.0~pre-1 from experimental to unstable.
Do you still plan to upload unicode-data 12.1?
Utf8proc 2.4.0, updated for unicode 12.1, has been released and we'd
like to get that version in.
Is anyone aware of any other bits outstanding?
Regards
Graham
Hi Graham
On 22/05/2019 12:36, Graham Inggs wrote:
Hi Alastair
Also, I plan to push 12.1.0~pre-1 from experimental to unstable.
Do you still plan to upload unicode-data 12.1?
No, to my knowledge 12.1.0~pre-1 is close enough (containing "Reiwa").
Unless someone can point to issues requiring
On 2019/05/22 13:48, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
No, to my knowledge 12.1.0~pre-1 is close enough (containing "Reiwa").
Unless someone can point to issues requiring it, Its not worth getting
everything else rebuilt.
Ah OK, thanks.
There's probably no need for utf8proc 2.4.0 then either.
Hi,
I just did a very annoying backport. The reason it was annoying was that
two of the packages involved specified a debhelper compat level of 11.
So in order to do the backport, I first had to get debhelper 11 (or 12).
The debhelper 12 package itself has a compat level of 12, which means I
cou
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:06:03PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> I just did a very annoying backport. The reason it was annoying was that
> two of the packages involved specified a debhelper compat level of 11.
>
> So in order to do the backport, I first had to get debhelper 11 (or 12).
[...]
> -
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:06:03PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> I just did a very annoying backport. The reason it was annoying was that
> two of the packages involved specified a debhelper compat level of 11.
>
> So in order to do the backport, I first had to get debhelper 11 (or 12).
>
> The d
> "Mo" == Mo Zhou writes:
Mo> Hi Holger, Yes, that section is about bit-by-bit
Mo> reproducibility, and identical hashsum is expected. Let's call
Mo> it "Bit-by-Bit reproducible".
Mo> I updated that section to make the definition of "reproducible"
Mo> explicit. And the st
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:06:03PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> I just did a very annoying backport. The reason it was annoying was that
> two of the packages involved specified a debhelper compat level of 11.
We have debhelper 12 already available:
| debhelper | 12.1.1~bpo9+1 | stretch-bac
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:06:03PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> So in order to do the backport, I first had to get debhelper 11 (or 12).
You make it sound so hard, but in my own experience it really isn't.
> The debhelper 12 package itself has a compat level of 12, which means I
> couldn't compi
On Wed, 22 May 2019 14:59:18 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo
wrote:
>On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:06:03PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
>> So in order to do the backport, I first had to get debhelper 11 (or 12).
>
>You make it sound so hard, but in my own experience it really isn't.
I totally feel with Simon,
On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:35:02 -0700, Sean Whitton
wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>In a recent thread there were several requests for a dgit FAQ.
>
>This now exists: https://wiki.debian.org/DgitFAQ
It's missing a Q1: What is dgit, why should I use it and how do I do
that, and a Q2: How would I check out dgit
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Daniel Kahn Gillmor
* Package name: sequoia
Version : 0.7.0
Upstream Author : Sequoia Developers
* URL : https://www.sequoia-pgp.org/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Rust
Description : A modern OpenPGP implemen
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 04:53:57PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> So in order to do the backport, I first had to get debhelper 11 (or 12).
> >
> >You make it sound so hard, but in my own experience it really isn't.
>
> I totally feel with Simon, especially in the later part of a stable
> release ba
Hello,
On Wed 22 May 2019 at 04:57PM +02, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:35:02 -0700, Sean Whitton
> wrote:
>>Hello all,
>>
>>In a recent thread there were several requests for a dgit FAQ.
>>
>>This now exists: https://wiki.debian.org/DgitFAQ
>
> It's missing a Q1: What is dgit, why
On 5/22/19 2:28 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:06:03PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
>> I just did a very annoying backport. The reason it was annoying was that
>> two of the packages involved specified a debhelper compat level of 11.
>>
>> So in order to do the backport, I fir
22 matches
Mail list logo
