Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> On 29 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Surely we can come to a consensus on something this trivial?
>
> foo (1.0-2) unstable; urgency=low; closes=10002,11930,10109
>
> seems fine to me (using ";" after "=low").
Surely this is far from being trivial.
That
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> In balance, I think I prefer changing the changelog syntax to
> include closed=, though it raises the spectre of modifying
> changelog.el and dpkg-parsechangelog.
>
Why? That syntax should be interpreted by the installer's scripts on
master, not on the maint
Hi,
>>"Charles" == Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Charles> Nooo... Look at this page, in the paragraph about urgency:
Charles>
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/packaging-manual/ch-sourcepkg.html#s-dpkgchangelog
Charles> Closes would be a keyword, like urgency, and can be ha
Charles Briscoe-Smith wrote:
> Nooo... Look at this page, in the paragraph about urgency:
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/packaging-manual/ch-sourcepkg.html#s-dpkgchangelog
>
> Closes would be a keyword, like urgency, and can be handled by the current
> keyword=value system, just like urge
Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> Another idea: In addition to "hello_1.3-14_i386.changes" we could have
> "hello_1.3-14_i386.closes", following a very simple syntax:
>
> 1234
> 5678
> 9012
If we use this, you don't get the benefit of seeing the bugs that were
closed by each release, in the changelog
Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> Right, and I agree.
> While we are discussing the rexpr to be used, I'd ask to please consider
> using:
> /close[s]? \s* = \s* (?:bug)? \s* \# (\d+)/ix
>
> Matches:
> close=#1234
> close =
> #97531
> Closes = Bug#5678 and also close=#87
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>foo (1.0-2) unstable; urgency=low; closes=10002,11930,10109
>
>seems fine to me (using ";" after "=low").
Nooo... Look at this page, in the paragraph about urgency:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/packaging-manual/ch-sourcepkg.html#s-dpkgchangelog
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> foo (1.0-2) unstable; urgency=low; closes=10002,11930,10109
Santiago> seems fine to me (using ";" after "=low").
Seconded.
manoj
--
You should encourage yourself, yourself. You should restrain
your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 29 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [...]
>
> Surely we can come to a consensus on something this trivial?
Ok,
foo (1.0-2) unstable; urgency=low; closes=10002,11930,10109
seems fine to me (using ";" after "=low").
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
V
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> I don't see very elegant to modify changelog syntax.
Ulp. I thought it was very elegant ...
Santiago> Another idea: In addition to "hello_1.3-14_i386.changes" we
Santiago> could have "hello_1.3-14_i386.closes"
On 28 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Britton" == Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Britton> Good individuals will almost invariably harbor a few bad
> Britton> individual ideas, for whatever reason. This is especially
> Britton> true in the technical fields. The process ap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I don't see very elegant to modify changelog syntax.
Another idea: In addition to "hello_1.3-14_i386.changes" we could have
"hello_1.3-14_i386.closes", following a very simple syntax:
1234
5678
9012
etc.
This way everybody could use their favourite parsing al
Hi,
>>"Rob" == Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rob> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I do not quite understand the X-debian-Closes proposal. When do I
>> insert this header? into what?
Rob> This was put forward as one option. What they were talking about
Rob> was an opti
Rob Browning wrote:
> I happen to think
> that the changelog closes= field is the best thing suggested so far.
>
Right, and I agree.
While we are discussing the rexpr to be used, I'd ask to please consider
using:
/close[s]? \s* = \s* (?:bug)? \s* \# (\d+)/ix
without forcing use of upper
Yes, The X11 config used to use it (still does, upstream) but it's
wrong that it did so (anything compiled that way broke horribly when
the libc5 libs got moved to the compat dir...)
> On Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:34:44 +0100, Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Yann> Christian Schwarz writes:
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, David Engel wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> > I suggest we modify libtool for Debian to not use -rpath.
>> > Comments?
>>
>> Yes, I think this would be good.
>>
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, this is different than the idea of adding them to the changelog and
> having Guy's installer scripts close the bugs. If this X-CLose header is
> used, the responsibility for closing bugs is still left up to the developer.
> Part of the reason for having
Hi,
>>"Britton" == Britton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Britton> Good individuals will almost invariably harbor a few bad
Britton> individual ideas, for whatever reason. This is especially
Britton> true in the technical fields. The process appears to be
Britton> sufficiently democratic that this
18 matches
Mail list logo
