On 02/07/2024 02:31, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On July 2, 2024 12:26:49 AM UTC, Soren Stoutner wrote:
That adds some needed clarification. I agree that in that circumstance, adding
an epoch is the best way forward. It allows you to maintain the current
upstream program version number, while u
Hi Jens,
On 02/07/2024 06:38, Jens Reyer wrote:
You may avoid the epoch if upstream is willing to provide a separate
package for about 2 years. (I did something similar to get rid of an
epoch in Ubuntu's wine packages a few years ago, replacing them with our
Debian packages):
package 9000.5
On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 at 03:47:29 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 15:40:07 +0200, Alexandre Detiste wrote:
> > Maybe a compromise would be to at least mandate some UTF-8 locale.
>
> dpkg-buildpackage: Require an UTF-8 (or ASCII) locale when
> building packages
Allowing ASCII seem
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Agathe Porte
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, gag...@debian.org
* Package name: python-milc
Version : 1.8.0
Upstream Contact: skullydazed
* URL : https://github.com/clueboard/milc/
* License : Expat
Program
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Agathe Porte
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, gag...@debian.org
* Package name: qmk
Version : 1.1.5
Upstream Contact: skullydazed
* URL : https://github.com/qmk/qmk_cli
* License : Expat
Programming Lang: P
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 05:17:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I would use an epoch.
yes.
[...]
> Basically, you'd be burning a lot of social capital with upstream for no
> really good reason and you probably still wouldn't be able to convince
> them. I don't think it's worth it.
yes.
> I wo
Hi!
On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 09:52:05 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 at 03:47:29 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 15:40:07 +0200, Alexandre Detiste wrote:
> > > Maybe a compromise would be to at least mandate some UTF-8 locale.
> >
> > dpkg-buildpackage: Requi
Hi!
On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 03:32:53 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 00:54:13 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> > Quite. People are quite resistant to spoiling neat version numbers
> > with epochs, and no-one likes them, but they don't do any actual harm
> > (except sometimes break scripts
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kari Pahula
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: gecode-snapshot
Version : 6.2.0+gitMMDD
Upstream Contact: Guido Tack , Mikael Zayenz Lagerkvist
* URL : https://www.gecode.org/
* License : MIT
Alec Leamas dijo [Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:59:26AM +0200]:
> So, at least three possible paths:
>
> 1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official
> packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like 5.10.x
>
> 2. Use versions like 9000.5.10, 9000.5.12. etc
On 02/07/2024 20:46, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Alec Leamas dijo [Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:59:26AM +0200]:
So, at least three possible paths:
1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official
packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like 5.10.x
2. Use versions
On 7/1/24 14:48, Alec Leamas wrote:
[...]
Hi Alec,
opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10.1 release. The
beta versions are like "5.9.2-beta2+dfsg-1ubuntu1~bpo2204.1". The
upstream policy is to use 5.9.2-beta2, 5.9.3-beta3 so this ordering is,
although a bit strange, still
Hi Milan,
On 02/07/2024 23:54, Milan Kupcevic wrote:
On 7/1/24 14:48, Alec Leamas wrote:
[...]
Hi Alec,
opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10.1 release. The
beta versions are like "5.9.2-beta2+dfsg-1ubuntu1~bpo2204.1". The
upstream policy is to use 5.9.2-beta2, 5.9.3-bet
On 7/3/24 00:28, Alec Leamas wrote:
The upstream shall consider adopting 5 digit release version numbering
[...]
The upstream "shall" not do anything, they are open for discussions but
certainly not for dictates.
thou shalt not ask if thou wisheth for no answers.
(please keep in mind tha
14 matches
Mail list logo
