On Thursday 19 May 2005 06:40, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:29:03 +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Wednesday 18 May 2005 08:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> -> so you're right back to distribution specific knowledge being
> -> needed anyhow
>
>
On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:29:03 +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wednesday 18 May 2005 08:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I find myself agreeing, except that I feel that way as soon as
>> people get away from tried and tested POSIX commands and
>> dpkg-dev. There are
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 08:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I find myself agreeing, except that I feel that way as soon as
> people get away from tried and tested POSIX commands and
> dpkg-dev. There are far more people who are competent with cp,
> install, mv, make, and other common POSIX
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I prefer to have these command (usually, mv, cp, gzip, etc)
> explicitly present, so one does not have to go looking through the
> library to guess what is being done.
Wow, here it is 2005, a whole 8 years since debhelper was introduced and
Manoj still doesn't k
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I appreciate the build system for certain red hat and suse packages not
> being arcane and distribution specific when I try and incorporate
> changes made in packages on those distributions, and I tend to return
> the favour.
Grep through the rpm book for all the % co
On 20050517T120701-0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > Don't do it without the maintainer's go-ahead. The current best
> > practice is to use whatever (non-evil thing that) works for the
> > maintainer.
>
> This "best practice" fails miserably if the maintainer is not alway
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:16:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I could, but in charity I shall not, point to cases where the
> helper packages are used as a crutch, with the developer having no
> idea what was going on , and copying rules files around, engaging in
> cargo cult progr
On 20050517T120043-0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > If I were to receive a bug report, say wishlist severity, containing a
> > patch that rewrites one of my packages' debian/rules to use debhelper, I
> > would be very upset: it would feel like an insult toward my style of
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)> writes:
> I find myself agreeing, except that I feel that way as soon as
> people get away from tried and tested POSIX commands and
> dpkg-dev. There are far more people who are competent with cp,
> install, mv, make, and other common POS
On Tue, 17 May 2005 03:45:28 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:35:56AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>> I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently
>> use hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to
>> use de
On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:07:01 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This "best practice" fails miserably if the maintainer is not always
> perfectly responsive. As soon as the maintainer goes on vacation (or
> MIA) and gets a security hole or RC bug in his package, the more
> nonstandard t
On Tue, 17 May 2005 11:35:56 +1000, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Howdy mentors, I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages
> that currently use hand-rolled debian/rules files.
Are the packages in question buggy, or you just find hand
rolled files aesthetically displea
Adrian von Bidder wrote on 17/05/2005 21:36:
> On Tuesday 17 May 2005 15.07, Ben Finney wrote:
>
>>I'm surprised that people have consistently read "submit patches" as
>>somehow bypassing the maintainer, or telling him what to do. To whom
>>would I be submitting the patches, if not the maintainer?
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 18.00, Joey Hess wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > If I were to receive a bug report, say wishlist severity, containing a
> > patch that rewrites one of my packages' debian/rules to use debhelper,
> > I would be very upset: it would feel like an insult toward my styl
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 15.07, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'm surprised that people have consistently read "submit patches" as
> somehow bypassing the maintainer, or telling him what to do. To whom
> would I be submitting the patches, if not the maintainer?
If I get a (wishlist) bug on a package I mainta
also sprach Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.17.1800 +0200]:
> You need to grow a thicker skin. By your reasoning, any
> substantial patch or code review is a personal attack; that is not
> an attitude that is conducive to evolving good code.
Unfortunately, we have many thin-skinned develope
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Don't do it without the maintainer's go-ahead. The current best
> practice is to use whatever (non-evil thing that) works for the
> maintainer.
This "best practice" fails miserably if the maintainer is not always
perfectly responsive. As soon as the maintainer goes
Quoting Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
If I were to receive a bug report, say wishlist severity, containing a
patch that rewrites one of my packages' debian/rules to use debhelper, I
would be very upset: it would feel like an insult toward my style of
packaging.
You ne
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> If I were to receive a bug report, say wishlist severity, containing a
> patch that rewrites one of my packages' debian/rules to use debhelper, I
> would be very upset: it would feel like an insult toward my style of
> packaging.
You need to grow a thicker skin. By
On 20050517T230750+1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'm surprised that people have consistently read "submit patches" as
> somehow bypassing the maintainer, or telling him what to do. To whom
> would I be submitting the patches, if not the maintainer?
>
> I'm curious what you all had in mind that I was g
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'm surprised that people have consistently read "submit patches" as
> somehow bypassing the maintainer, or telling him what to do. To whom
> would I be submitting the patches, if not the maintainer?
To the maintainer, via the BTS as a wishlist bug. That's
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 04:11, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> debhelper(7) contains a list of all the available dh_foo programs, and
> a short description of each.
not quite, it only lists those delivered by the debhelper package, below the
list the manpage has the following:
If a program's name
also sprach Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.17.1507 +0200]:
> I'm surprised that people have consistently read "submit patches" as
> somehow bypassing the maintainer, or telling him what to do. To whom
> would I be submitting the patches, if not the maintainer?
Sure, but you are either goi
On 17-May-2005, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2005, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently
> > use hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise
> > to use debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
>
> The current best practise
On 20050517T113556+1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
> hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to use
> debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
Don't do it without the maintainer's go-ahead. The current best
practi
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.17.1342 +0200]:
> I think it's a miss-quote. Morgenröte ("The Dawn"), where I believe
> this is from, deals a lot with "belief" not with "thought", and
> Nietzsche makes a big deal about this distinction throughout his
> works. I would be sur
also sprach Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.17.0335 +0200]:
> I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
> hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to use
> debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
No. And don't go down this route because it *w
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
> hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to use
> debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
The current best practise is to not assume that everybody wants to use
deb
On 17-May-2005, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Ben Finney [Tue, 17 May 2005 12:00:38 +1000]:
> > That's exactly what I need help with. What should I do to decide
> > "here's a bunch of hand-rolled stuff that has a direct or indirect
> > debhelper replacement"?
>
> debhelper(7) contains a list of all the
* Ben Finney [Tue, 17 May 2005 12:00:38 +1000]:
> On 17-May-2005, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > * Ben Finney [Tue, 17 May 2005 11:35:56 +1000]:
> > > I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
> > > hand-rolled debian/rules files.
> > Which packages, and why?
> I'd rather n
On 17-May-2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> I don't think there's really consensus on it, but from personal
> experience, I highly favour debhelper for reasons of least surprise:
This seems a good reason, thanks.
On 17-May-2005, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Ben Finney [Tue, 17 May 2005 11:35:56 +1
* Ben Finney [Tue, 17 May 2005 11:35:56 +1000]:
> I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
> hand-rolled debian/rules files.
Which packages, and why? I mean, there are very cleanly packaged files
that don't use debhelper nor cdbs (see e.g. make). But there can be
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:35:56AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
> hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to use
> debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
I don't think there's really consensus on it, but from
Howdy mentors,
I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to use
debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
Any existing "things to check" document for moving to either or both
of these systems?
--
\ "Ours
34 matches
Mail list logo
