On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 06:14:26AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I seems I'll need to clarify this as well
To be honest, I'd love to see you ignore this entire thread if it means
you'll spend time whipping the triggers stuff into whatever shape you
think it needs to be in to go into sid.
Perhaps
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 10:01:35 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
> triggers)"):
> > On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 14:42:48 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Against the wishes of, afaict, Guillem and Raphael
* Mike Bird
| Please recall that Ian wrote dpkg (replacing Murdock's earlier
| PERL dpkg). Ian knows dpkg better than any of the current team.
Ian had one upload of dpkg after September 1996, which was in 1998
before he suddenly regained interest in it about a year or so ago. I'm
not questionin
Andreas Tille writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
triggers)"):
> Well, I don't want to interrupt your guys thrilling discussion
> about indentation of source code and I can not really imagine
> that you are not aware of
> apt-cache show i
John Goerzen writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also, triggers)"):
> I think both you and Ian are making a mountain out of a molehill here. So
> what if the history isn't pretty? It won't impact anybody running dpkg. It
> likely won't even impa
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 11:16 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> Ian appears to have chosen to speak truth to power rather than
> forking. Do you have a constructive alternative to suggest?
$ echo ":/dpkg/i" >> ~/.killfile
William
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed March 12 2008 10:26:52 Luk Claes wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > It would be flogging a dead horse if we didn't have the core packaging
> > software maintained by an obstructive and naive programmer supported
> > by someone who is more interested in pretty revision logs than good
> > code.
>
Ian Jackson wrote:
> William Pitcock writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
> triggers)"):
>> On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 22:06 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
>>> It's easy to see negatives such as making it harder to merge
>>> long-awaited fe
On Tue March 11 2008 10:45:43 pm Guillem Jover wrote:
> Anyway, after the freeze was announced it was clear that Ian was not
> going to fix the branch, and because having this feature for lenny is
> highly desirable I was just going to have to fix it myself and review
> during that process, but got
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 01:19:58PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> And most importantly, you wouldn't contemplate deploying somewhere else an
> implementation of triggers that hasn't been accepted in dpkg, because of the
> danger of creating (and maintaining) a sustained incompatibility.
Oh wait,
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:01:35AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 14:42:48 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Against the wishes of, afaict, Guillem and Raphael, Ian's made applying
> > > his triggers patch dependent on:
> > >
> > > - reversion to two space indenting
>
> The
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
The history of this change is as follows:
* At some point, without any kind of discussion, Guillem
unilaterally reformats several files to 8-character indents.
...
Well, I don't want to interrupt your guys thrilling discussion
about indentation of so
Le mercredi 12 mars 2008 à 10:01 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
> triggers)"):
> > I'd like to clarify few more things, which have been brough up the past
> > few days. Even if I don
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
triggers)"):
> I'd like to clarify few more things, which have been brough up the past
> few days. Even if I don't usually accept open invitations to flamefests
> (re the OP).
Guillem emerges! At
William Pitcock writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
triggers)"):
> On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 22:06 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > It's easy to see negatives such as making it harder to merge
> > long-awaited features. What positives do you see for Debian
Hi,
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 22:06 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> Hi Guillem,
>
> Ian wrote that you recently committed 402 diff lines of stuff
> like this:
> -static void usage(void) {
> +void
> +usage(void)
> +{
>
> It's easy to see negatives such as making it harder to merge
> long-awaited fe
Hi Guillem,
Ian wrote that you recently committed 402 diff lines of stuff
like this:
-static void usage(void) {
+void
+usage(void)
+{
It's easy to see negatives such as making it harder to merge
long-awaited features. What positives do you see for Debian?
--Mike Bird
Hi,
I'd like to clarify few more things, which have been brough up the past
few days. Even if I don't usually accept open invitations to flamefests
(re the OP).
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 14:42:48 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 10:38:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 09-
* Anthony Towns
| In January, Tollef posted about his file exclusion branch, for review.
| Guillem did some review and proposed merging it for .17; afaics Ian
| couldn't find the git repository at first attempt, then offered to review,
| but never did.
|
|-- http://lists.debian.org/debian-dp
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 10:38:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 09-Mar-08, 19:30 (CDT), Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was going to ask on which grounds exactly you were judging the dpkg
> > team's competence (and that of iwj's: have you reviewed the branch
> > yourself? can y
On 09-Mar-08, 19:30 (CDT), Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was going to ask on which grounds exactly you were judging the dpkg
> team's competence (and that of iwj's: have you reviewed the branch
> yourself? can you confidently say that it's all fine?),
The problem is not the dpkg tea
On Sun March 9 2008 17:30:51 Daniel Stone wrote:
> [Not subscribed, Cc if you want me to see it.]
>
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Ian hijacked his own program back from the people who had been blocking
> > updates for six months
>
> So Ian Murdock would be perfect
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 07:52:28PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > With this message I am unilaterally declaring myself a maintainer of
> > > dpkg, and also declaring that Guillem is no longer a maintainer
[Not subscribed, Cc if you want me to see it.]
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> Ian hijacked his own program back from the people who had been blocking
> updates for six months
So Ian Murdock would be perfectly entitled to kick out the DAM, DPL, TC,
DSA, and all others
On Sun March 9 2008 16:07:58 Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ian hijacked his own program back from the people who had been blocking
> > updates for six months - including the triggers enhancement which is
> > needed for boot time improvements
>
> dpkg trig
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian hijacked his own program back from the people who had been blocking
> updates for six months - including the triggers enhancement which is
> needed for boot time improvements
dpkg triggers are nice to have, but they are not the reason why we
haven't swi
On Sun March 9 2008 14:46:50 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 09/03/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Ian hijacked his own program back from the people who had been
> > blocking updates for six months - including the triggers enhancement
> > which is needed for boot time improvements
>
> Is dpkg handling the b
William Pitcock wrote:
> I think you mean package install-time improvements, due to postponing
> ldconfig until the end of the installation. However, I am not sure how
> useful this is because many maintainer scripts not generated by
> debhelper call ldconfig locally.
>
> Obviously the maintainer
William Pitcock a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 13:19 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
>> including the triggers enhancement which is
>> needed for boot time improvements and which should simplify some other
>> packaging issues.
>
> I think you mean package install-time improvements, due to post
Hi,
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 13:19 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> including the triggers enhancement which is
> needed for boot time improvements and which should simplify some other
> packaging issues.
I think you mean package install-time improvements, due to postponing
ldconfig until the end of the in
On 09/03/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
> Ian hijacked his own program back from the people who had been
> blocking updates for six months - including the triggers enhancement
> which is needed for boot time improvements
Is dpkg handling the boot sequence? Or are you confusing that with
dependency-based i
On Sun March 9 2008 13:44:08 Roger Leigh wrote:
> I seriously can't believe that you hijacked this over a disagreement
> about the definition/usage of NULL. Include and be done
> with it already--it's not like this is a pressing or difficult problem
> that warranted this action!
Roger,
NULL is
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 11:28:13AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> [1] Guillem persistently reintroducing errors, wholesale
>
> Here is an example of a big code change made by Guillem:
>
> http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commit;h=4e5846ccd3dcc33504aba8ef35a8962bccfd562e
> However this i
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also, triggers)"):
> Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
> triggers)"):
> OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET SOMETHING DONE AROUND HERE?
> SIX MONTHS THIS
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
triggers)"):
> The package got unaccepted by Anthony Towns.
OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET SOMETHING DONE AROUND HERE?
SIX MONTHS THIS IMPORTANT CODE HAS JUST BEEN SITTING THERE
--
To UNS
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Can you tell us in which situations we have "#define NULL 0"
> > as opposed to "#define NULL (void*)0" ?
>
> Some C libraries do this for the benefit of broken old programs which
> use NULL when they mean an integer or character0. C99 says it's legal
>
Hi,
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 19:27 +, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> You're hurting the credibility of the comittee and of the whole
> project.
> That's much more important than a disagreement on a technical matter.
On the other hand allowing dpkg to be maintained in the way that it
presently is, is
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:34:36PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
> triggers)"):
> > If you're so afraid that one of the included headers defines NULL to
> > '0', then just as
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
triggers)"):
> You can also read the log of #debian-dpkg since friday evening where I
> spent two hours with him trying to find some compromise so that he can
> contribute to dpkg. He just ignored everythi
On Sun March 9 2008 12:27:59 Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> I can't understand how a Debian Developer, let alone a Technical
> Comittee member, can find it acceptable to hijack a package actively
> maintained because of technical disagreements with its maintainer.
> Especially if that package is a core
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:34:48PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Here is the relevant C99 quote:
>
>
> § 7.17 Common definitions
> [...]
> 3 The macros are
> NULL
> which expands to an implementation-defined null pointer constant; and
>
>
> 0 is not a pointer, hen
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > With this message I am unilaterally declaring myself a maintainer of
> > dpkg, and also declaring that Guillem is no longer a maintainer.
>
> For the record, Ian has been removed from the "dpkg" group on Alio
Pierre Habouzit writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
triggers)"):
> AHAHAHAHAHA I totally missed that part in the first read. You're
> totally on crack. Under C, NULL is defined as (void *)0
> (and *NOT* (char *)0 that is TOTALLY wrong for obvious reas
Pierre Habouzit writes ("Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also,
triggers)"):
> What a brilliant success for your new upload !
> http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/package.php?p=dpkg
This was due to a buggy translation update (predating my efforts, but
not yet uploaded
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 07:09:39PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Well, I read it that way:
>
> An integer constant expression with the value 0 (or such an
> expression) cast to type void *, is called a null pointer constant.55)
Well, don't read it that way - the commas in the original versi
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 07:17:44PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:16:03PM +, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 05:50:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>> I fully support Guillem changes. C99 is almost 10 years old, we're
>>> coding dpkg for De
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:16:03PM +, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 05:50:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > I fully support Guillem changes. C99 is almost 10 years old, we're
> > coding dpkg for Debian, in a sane C99/POSIX/X-OPEN/whatever
> > environment.
>
> Hm
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 05:50:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I fully support Guillem changes. C99 is almost 10 years old, we're
> coding dpkg for Debian, in a sane C99/POSIX/X-OPEN/whatever
> environment.
Hmm... Not really. GCC's default mode is still C89+GNU extensions. It
is true that t
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Finally, of course, I am on the Technical Committee. For me to appeal
> this dispute to it in this way would seem too much like me using it as
> a personal bludgeon.
You could also appeal this dispute to it and not take part in the vote,
so that the TC's
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:00:31PM +, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:48:41PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > 6.3.2.3 Pointers
> > [...]
> > 3 An integer constant expression with the value 0, or
> >such an expression cast to type void *, is called a null
> >po
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:48:41PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 6.3.2.3 Pointers
> [...]
> 3 An integer constant expression with the value 0, or
>such an expression cast to type void *, is called a null
>pointer constant.55) If a null pointer constant is assigned
>to or
Ian Jackson wrote:
[4] Why not ask the Technical Committee to rule ?
The TC has not shown great dynamism in recent months. I have tried
quite hard as a TC member to get various questions that were put to
the TC decided, and the results have not been encouraging.
In any case, asking the TC abou
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 06:34:48PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 05:21:47PM +, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 05:50:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > >
> > > AHAHAHAHAHA I totally missed that part in the first read. You're
> > > totally on crack
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > [2] Reformatting changes
> >
> > Guillem has been engaging in a programme of reformatting and restyling
> > of dpkg's code.
>
> I agree that it's necessarily a good idea to reformat the code but you
^
not
> brou
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 05:21:47PM +, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 05:50:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >
> > AHAHAHAHAHA I totally missed that part in the first read. You're
> > totally on crack. Under C, NULL is defined as (void *)0
> > (and *NOT* (char *)0 that is TO
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> With this message I am unilaterally declaring myself a maintainer of
> dpkg, and also declaring that Guillem is no longer a maintainer.
For the record, Ian has been removed from the "dpkg" group on Alioth and
we asked for an UNACCEPT of his upload, but I'm
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 05:50:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> AHAHAHAHAHA I totally missed that part in the first read. You're
> totally on crack. Under C, NULL is defined as (void *)0
> (and *NOT* (char *)0 that is TOTALLY wrong for obvious reasons), and
> "someone" is not going to #defi
On dim, mar 09, 2008 at 11:28:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> REFERENCES, BACKGROUND and FURTHER DISCUSSION
>
>
> [1] Guillem persistently reintroducing errors, wholesale
>
> Here is an example of a big code change made by Guillem:
>
> http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commit;h=4e5846cc
On dim, mar 09, 2008 at 11:28:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> With this message I am unilaterally declaring myself a maintainer of
> dpkg, and also declaring that Guillem is no longer a maintainer.
>
> I have just made the hijack upload, dpkg 1.15.0, which contains
> triggers support. You can find
59 matches
Mail list logo
