On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 06:48:32PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Is this so very different from what people do? Some times I do
> >> not package every upstream version, if they are coming in rapid
> >> succession, or if I find some version unfit for Debian -- but in any
> >> case,
On 12-Mar-2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The best way to get the exact sources for the current
> > version probably should be a new watch file
> > (watch-current) which has a static version number in the
> > regexp
I don't see why this file would be needed
Ben Finney writes:
> On 12-Mar-2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I never use uscan --download; I always download the new upstream source
>> myself using wget or a web browser or FTP client.
> Why is that? Is there some downside to using ‘uscan --download’? I would
> have thought it best to use the au
On 12-Mar-2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
> > b) If there is a new upstream version, cd checked out dir
> > 1. No munging required: use uscan --rename --verbose to get the
> >latest source.
> > 2. Munging needed. Run get-orig-source to get the latest upstre
Hi,
[Moving this away from the BTS]
On Thu, Mar 12 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:38:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> Is this so very different from what people do? Some times I do
>> not package every upstream version, if they are coming in rapid
>>
On 12-Mar-2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> To recap:
> 1) apt-get source is enough to get the latest Debian source from the
> archive (and whet for older sources)
I presume you mean ‘wget’ here. (Apart from ‘apt-get source’, is there
another tool that is *solely* focussed on getting th
On Thu, Mar 12 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> a) Run a upstream version check from cron, which mails me if there are
>> new upstream versions of something I have.
>
> What happens if your watch file breaks? Do you check upstream announcements
> manually, too?
On Thu, Mar 12 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> a) Run a upstream version check from cron, which mails me if there are
>> new upstream versions of something I have.
>> b) If there is a new upstream version, cd checked out dir
>> 1. No munging required: use uscan
On 12-Mar-2009, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I feel this should clearly be an optional target, and the canonical
> location for orig.tar.gz files should still be our archive
Yes to both. Thanks for making this explicit in the discussion.
--
\ “Reichel's Law: A body on vacation tends to remain on v
Steve Langasek writes:
> (N.B.: I say "it makes sense to me", but in practice the packages I've
> inherited hardcode the version to pull in debian/rules rather than
> parsing the changelog. I consider this a minor bug that I just haven't
> gotten around to fixing.)
I got into the habit of doing
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:59:50AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I personally use the same technique that Steve uses for the packages that
> I maintain that need to be repacked, and I'm having a failure of
> imagination for how I could do it the way that Manoj describes.
I use versionned for packag
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:38:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Is this so very different from what people do? Some times I do
> not package every upstream version, if they are coming in rapid
> succession, or if I find some version unfit for Debian -- but in any
> case, the majori
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> No, please don't just add another watch file just for the sake of it,
> using these files is more or less like living in the last
> century. People are able to get the current source from the Debian pool,
> if that is not enough for them, they should be old enough to be ab
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> a) Run a upstream version check from cron, which mails me if there are
> new upstream versions of something I have.
What happens if your watch file breaks? Do you check upstream announcements
manually, too?
> b) If there is a new upstream version, cd checked out di
Hi,
> The best way to get the exact sources for the current version
> probably should be a new watch file (watch-current) which has a static
> version number in the regexp, but can use all the other facilities f
> uscan -- wild carded directory, looking thoiugh an index.html page for
>
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> a) Run a upstream version check from cron, which mails me if there are
> new upstream versions of something I have.
> b) If there is a new upstream version, cd checked out dir
> 1. No munging required: use uscan --rename --verbose to get the
>latest so
On Thu, Mar 12 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I personally use the same technique that Steve uses for the packages that
> I maintain that need to be repacked, and I'm having a failure of
> imagination for how I could do it the way that Manoj describes.
Hmm. Let me see if I can elucidate. He
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Good point you have here - But (and I know it is not being discussed
> yet, maybe you want to teleport this thread a couple of years into the
> future) I feel this should clearly be an optional target, and the
> canonical location for orig.tar.gz files should still be our ar
On Thu, Mar 12 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:13:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> This is what diferentiates is from uscan; indeed, I use uscan in
>> the cases where I provide the target, The target unpacks the
>> raw upstream source, munges it (by, say, r
Steve Langasek dijo [Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 02:05:42AM -0700]:
> I think it's perfectly reasonable to want the get-orig-source target to give
> you a *specified* version of an upstream tarball, rather than the *newest*
> version of an upstream tarball. Packaging a new upstream version doesn't
> nece
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:13:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This is what diferentiates is from uscan; indeed, I use uscan in
> the cases where I provide the target, The target unpacks the
> raw upstream source, munges it (by, say, removing a subdir which has
> non-dfsg stuff, or
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:14:03PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> I fail to see the difference between a BDF-to-PCF converter and a C compiler
>> that will discard comments from the C source files. Yet we do not generally
>> ship C sour
22 matches
Mail list logo
