Le 2025-01-11 13:49, Fabio Fantoni a écrit :
What would be the best, easiest and fastest procedure (especially for
newcomers) to create a new package from scratch, aiming to use git,
salsa, salsa-ci, gbp and DEP14 from the beginning?
It Depends™. As in, it really depends on what you are pack
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dirk Eddelbuettel
* Package name: r-cran-reformulas
Version : 0.4.0
Upstream Author : Ben Bolker
* URL or Web page : https://cran.r-project.org/package=reformulas
* License : GPL-3
Programming lang: R
Description : GNU R pa
Il 11/01/2025 16:38, Ahmad Khalifa ha scritto:
On 11/01/2025 12:49, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
Write on Google "Debian create new package" and first result:
https:// wiki.debian.org/HowToPackageForDebian
It points to various parts but mainly the more probable start point
seems https://wiki.debian.o
On 1/11/25 5:25 PM, M. Zhou wrote:
> Opinion against this post will include something about hallucination.
> In the case LLM write something that does not compile at all, or write
> some non-existent API, a human is intelligent enough to easily notice
> that build failure or lintian error and tell
On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 11:25:20AM -0500, M. Zhou wrote:
> Opinion against this post will include something about hallucination.
> In the case LLM write something that does not compile at all, or write
> some non-existent API, a human is intelligent enough to easily notice
> that build failure or l
Hi,
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Like many others, this looks like a gratuitous change for change's sake.
> Countless packages have been using "upstream" for years, but apparently
> it is not perfect enough and somebody had to invent a new name.
It's difficult to have figures for t
There has been a lot of talk about attracting and helping new
maintainers, some improvements have been made "here and there", the
documentation of gbp (the most used tool) has been improved, salsa,
salsa-ci have been improved, there is discussion about DEP18, accepting
DEP14 etc...
Having mos
On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 01:49:33PM +0100, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
> I don't know if I've managed to explain well what I mean, but from what I've
> seen over the years, most of the people I've seen trying to approach
> packaging have had difficulty finding documentation and help (even on
> mentors, alt
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: elpa-empv
Version : v4.9.0
Upstream Author : isamert (Isa Mert Gurbuz)
* URL or Web page : https://github.com/isamert/empv.el
* License : GPL-3.0
Description : Empv.el provides a better command of the mpv player utility
On Sat, 2025-01-11 at 13:49 +0100, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
>
> Today trying to see how a new person who wants to start maintaining new
> packages would do and trying to do research thinking from his point of
> view and from simple searches on the internet I found unfortunately that
> these parts a
On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 03:38:10PM +, Ahmad Khalifa wrote:
> > Write on Google "Debian create new package" and first result: https://
> > wiki.debian.org/HowToPackageForDebian
> >
> > It points to various parts but mainly the more probable start point
> > seems https://wiki.debian.org/Packagin
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 18:04:15 +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> Yeah, not sure if that's your point but I think everyone agrees that we
> need a good new packager document and while there were some attempts in
> the past (see links on https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers/ )
> there is sti
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bo YU
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
Control: block 1092349 by -1
* Package name: python-crypt-r
Version : 3.13.1
Upstream Contact: Miro Hrončok
* URL : https://github.com/fedora-pyth
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 12:00:27 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Given that the "upstream" branch name cames from the git-buildpackage and
> that it's git-buildpackage which introduced "upstreamvcs", it seems fair
> to me to standardize on this name.
In theory, yes. In pratice, quoting myself:
| As
> please be careful in your efforts to make contributing easier to not alienate
> those who already contribute, sometimes for decades. also: it's rather easy to
> kill motivation but very hard to revive it, once killed.
The above got quoted in the latest LWN, so it may be a sign that the
above vie
...
> Debian should consider allocating some budget like several hundred USD
> per month for the LLM API calls for all members and new-comers' usage.
I don't think Debian should as an organization pay for LLMs. On the
contrary I would expect LLM providers to offer API keys for free to
Debian Devel
On 11/01/2025 12:49, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
Write on Google "Debian create new package" and first result: https://
wiki.debian.org/HowToPackageForDebian
It points to various parts but mainly the more probable start point
seems https://wiki.debian.org/Packaging/Intro
To point to git and gbp see
i'm beginning to see use of minisign[0] as an alternative to GPG
for signing releases[2]. i'm completely ambivalent with regards to
the merits of minisign, but would like to be able to verify them
with uscan.
looking at the uscan man page and code[1], i don't see any way
to specify an alternative
nick black left as an exercise for the reader:
> i'm beginning to see use of minisign[0] as an alternative to GPG
> for signing releases[2]. i'm completely ambivalent with regards to
> the merits of minisign, but would like to be able to verify them
> with uscan.
so this is how watch might look fo
Hi!
(cross-posting to mentors as they have most experience on what is
wrong with our current docs)
...
> Even if somebody in Debian community has enough time to overhaul everything
> and create a new documentation, it will become the situation described
> in XKCD meme "standards": xkcd.com/927/ -
20 matches
Mail list logo
