Hi Paul,
On Mo 14 Mär 2022 21:36:11 CET, Paul Gevers wrote:
Dear all,
We are currently considering the following dates as our freeze
dates. If you are aware of major clashes of these dates with anything
we depend on please let us know. We also like to stress again that we
really would like to
Am 15.03.22 um 03:31 schrieb Paul Wise:
On Mon, 2022-03-14 at 11:47 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Yes, this is true. These are the unit and script that I use, and I think
that Debian would benefit from having something like this available in
some common package.
...
$(systemctl status "$FAILED_
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Salvo \"LtWorf\" Tomaselli"
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, tipos...@tiscali.it
* Package name: kasts
Version : 22.02
Upstream Author : Bart de Wries (and others)
* URL : https://apps.kde.org/kasts/
* License
Hi,
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
[bit late to this thread; came here when I got some MBF bugs and saw
"make them Severity: serious..." in the linked mail. I think in this
case use of source format 1.0 isn't against policy, _shouldn't_ be
against policy (or at least, not in all cases), and that de fact
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:54:50AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> It's probably unfashionable, but I think debian/patches is not a great
> way to manage changes, particularly if you're using a VCS for
> maintaining your packages. As others have pointed out in this thread,
> doing this means you end
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0"):
> Sean Whitton writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
> 1.0"):
> > [questions]
...
>
> The situation here is complicated.
>
>
> The tl;dr is that
>
> * there are several situations where 1.
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0"):
> But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.
>
> I spent some time trying to help by setting out the factual
> background, but it seems that Debian is not interested in facts. I
> don't know why I bother.
For
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:54:50AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> It's probably unfashionable, but I think debian/patches is not a great
>> way to manage changes, particularly if you're using a VCS for
>> maintaining your packages. As others have pointed out in this
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 02:58:31PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 05:15PM +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > On 09/03/22 at 08:52 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> On Wed 09 Mar 2022 at 01:08pm +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >> > Also, how would that work with packages th
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:49:17AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> >> It's probably unfashionable, but I think debian/patches is not a great
> >> way to manage changes, particularly if you're using a VCS for
> >> maintaining your packages. As others have pointed out in this thread,
> >> doing this m
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:49:17AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> but even if it were, is that an entirely unreasonable position for a
>> package maintainer (or team thereof) to take?
> Probably not? Just yet another case where you need to learn a specific
> workflo
On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 01:08:59PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> can we find a middleground where the git workflows don't require staying
> with 1.0? Even if that means switching to 3.0 (quilt) using the
> single-debian-patch approach?
Well. There is a specific source format now for full git wor
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:46 AM Ian Jackson
wrote:
>
> Debian is not upstream, so it has a Debian revision. The package is
> maintained in git, and the source package is very small and it is not
> uploaded frequently. So we use a native source format. This means
> that we must use format 1
On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 17:53:12 +0100
Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A part of the ballot option in choice 2 was missing. Here is the
> corrected ballot.
>
> Voting period starts 2022-03-13 00:00:00 UTC
> Votes must be received by 2022-03-26 23:59:59 UTC
>
On Tue, 2022-03-15 at 09:48 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 15.03.22 um 03:31 schrieb Paul Wise:
> > On Mon, 2022-03-14 at 11:47 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, this is true. These are the unit and script that I use, and I think
> > > that Debian would benefit from having something like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
> VOTING FORM
>
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 6acf7f89-3eb2-492c-8715-98ae65b5f9d2
> [4] Choice 1: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote
> [1] Choice 2: Hide identities of Developer
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:46:10AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
> 1.0"):
> > But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.
> For example, consider a package maintained by a sponsee of mine:
>
> Debian is not upstream, s
Eh, I obviously forgot to fix up the reply-to bit. Sorry for the noise.
--
Michael Lustfield
Am Montag, 14. März 2022, 21:36:11 CET schrieb Paul Gevers:
> 2022-01-12 - Milestone 1 - Transition and toolchain freeze
> 2022-02-12 - Milestone 2 - Soft Freeze
> 2022-03-12 - Milestone 3 - Hard Freeze - for key packages and
> packages without autopkg
Michael Biebl writes:
> Am 15.03.22 um 03:31 schrieb Paul Wise:
>> On Mon, 2022-03-14 at 11:47 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, this is true. These are the unit and script that I use, and I think
>>> that Debian would benefit from having something like this available in
>>> some common pac
On 15/03/22 at 10:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Answers were given, including by a former DPL (whom you may observe
> is not someone I am on speaking terms with).
>
> But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.
>
> I spent some time trying to help by setting out the factual
> background, b
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
1.0"):
> As explained in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00165.html
> I proceeded with the MBF for packages that match
> not (debian_x or (vcs and vcs_status != 'ERROR' and direct_changes))
> or, maybe ea
On 3/15/22 10:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
1.0"):
As explained in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00165.html
I proceeded with the MBF for packages that match
not (debian_x or (vcs and vcs_status != 'ERROR' a
Hello,
On Tue 15 Mar 2022 at 04:16pm +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 15/03/22 at 10:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Answers were given, including by a former DPL (whom you may observe
>> is not someone I am on speaking terms with).
>>
>> But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway.
>>
>> I s
Hi,
On 15/03/22 at 15:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> At least the following packages of which I am the maintainer or
> sponsor were includined in the MBF, despite the fact that they are 1.0
> native packages with Debian revision:
>
>its-playback-time
>spigot
>vm
>vtwm
>chroma
Hi,
On 15/03/22 at 09:29 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > What the are the packages for which you are surprised that bugs were
> > filed? I wonder which part of the criteria was too loose.
>
> It looks like the query didn't do quite what was intended, indeed:
> src:userv-utils is maintained in git
Hi!
On Tue, 2022-03-15 at 15:36:48 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> However, given that I perceive that:
> - there is a campaign to abolish 1.0
> - there are important use cases where 1.0 is needed
> - the campaign to abolish 1.0 is being prosecuted anyway
> I have deliberately chosen to continue
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Guilherme de Paula Xavier Segundo
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, guilherme@gmail.com
* Package name: golang-github-badgerodon-peg
Version : 0.0~git20130729.9e5f7f4-1
Upstream Author : Badgerodon
* URL : https://
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: proposed MBF: packages still using source format
1.0"):
> Something I might want to see though (although I hold not much hope
> for) is a possible move away from the default behavior when no
> debian/source/format is present, as I think that gives bad defaults
> for newc
Paul Gevers wrote on 14/03/2022 at 21:43:38+0100:
> Dear all,
>
> We are currently considering the following dates as our freeze
> dates. If you are aware of major clashes of these dates with anything
> we depend on please let us know. We also like to stress again that we
> really would like to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 13:52:14 +, Holger Levsen
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 01:10:19PM +, Wookey wrote:
> > > You're trying to produce packages from CI builds or other automation
> > > where you sometimes have native Debian revisions.
> > >
> > > * you are producing a package where you
On 14.03.22 at 12:12, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
Any plan of packaging solo2-cli?
Yes, it's on my list - I'm just waiting for my Solo 2 keys to arrive.
Best,
Philip
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 5:16 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>
> Paul Gevers wrote on 14/03/2022 at 21:43:38+0100:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We are currently considering the following dates as our freeze
> > dates. If you are aware of major clashes of these dates with anything
> > we depend on plea
Leandro Cunha wrote on 15/03/2022 at 22:57:39+0100:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 5:16 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>
> Paul Gevers wrote on 14/03/2022 at 21:43:38+0100:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We are currently considering the following dates as our freeze
> > dates. If you are aware of maj
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 7:05 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>
>
> Leandro Cunha wrote on 15/03/2022 at
> 22:57:39+0100:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 5:16 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue
> > wrote:
> >
> > Paul Gevers wrote on 14/03/2022 at 21:43:38+0100:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > We a
On Tue, 2022-03-15 at 13:28 +, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Yes indeed, logs can be filtered by invocation id, eg:
>
> journalctl INVOCATION_ID=abcdefg
That sounds useful.
> Also to make a unit's log "private" (not stored in the system journal)
> LogNamespace= can be used, see:
>
> https://www.f
Lucas Nussbaum dixit:
>column on https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi )
I’m apparently affected at least for cvs, but that package has
another very interesting use case for format 1.0:
Its .diff.gz file can *directly* be used as patch file in no less
than *two* other packaging systems (BS
37 matches
Mail list logo
