On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 01:18:42PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 12, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to say the target should be
> > "patched", rather than "source". For reference, the proposal as it now
> > reads follows; as always, I'm looking for secon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 04:00:17PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>
>>Hi,
Hi
[...]
> Anyway. Thanks to your excellent research in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in this bug (and your reminder on IRC
> that you did this :-), we know tha
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 01:18:42PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 12, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to say the target should be
> > "patched", rather than "source". For reference, the proposal as it now
> > reads follows; as always, I'm looking for secon
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 01:06:10PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> There are essentially two ways to use patch systems like dpatch: In
> debian/rules have 'clean' depend on 'unpatch' or on 'patch'. While the
> standard way is to depend on 'unpatch', if you make it depends on
> 'patch', then all pat
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 08:56:25PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I would like to make one comment:
> >
> > There are essentially two ways to use patch systems like dpatch: In
> > debian/rules have 'clean' depend on 'unpatch' or on 'patch'. While the
> > standard way is to depend on 'u
Hi,
> I would like to make one comment:
>
> There are essentially two ways to use patch systems like dpatch: In
> debian/rules have 'clean' depend on 'unpatch' or on 'patch'. While the
> standard way is to depend on 'unpatch', if you make it depends on
> 'patch', then all patches are applied by
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:24:04AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> +
> + If, even after this warning, a maintainer still chooses to
> + do so by either creating the layout of the source package
> + such that running dpkg-source -x does not
> + render editable source, or
On Jun 12, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to say the target should be
> "patched", rather than "source". For reference, the proposal as it now
> reads follows; as always, I'm looking for seconds.
I object. If the standard "patched" target exists then README.source
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 04:00:17PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > That being said, a recent post on -devel by Lars Wirzenius[1] made me
> > realize that this problem is about more than (c)dbs; thus, I've changed
> > the concept to make it broader.
> >
> > I'm hereby rescinding all previ
Hi,
> That being said, a recent post on -devel by Lars Wirzenius[1] made me
> realize that this problem is about more than (c)dbs; thus, I've changed
> the concept to make it broader.
>
> I'm hereby rescinding all previous proposals I made on #250202, to
> replace them with the following:
Your p
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> dbs, one of the larger contributors to this particular packaging style,
>> uses "setup", so if "setup" was used all the dbs packages at least
>> would immediately satisfy the should.
> Y
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tuesday 26 April 2005 16:14, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> >> True. What I'm looking for is something unique; so 'source' is clearly
> >> right out. Perhaps 'edit' could be better, or 'fin
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 26 April 2005 16:14, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> True. What I'm looking for is something unique; so 'source' is clearly
>> right out. Perhaps 'edit' could be better, or 'finish'. Suggestions are
>> most certainly welcome.
> 'prepare' ?
dbs, on
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 16:14, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 04:07:01PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > Don't know why, this must be way before my time in Debian...
> > It would be good to check for the amount of packages affected by that
> > nevertheless.
>
> True. What I'm
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 04:07:01PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > + In ad
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050426 15:10]:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> > > + source to the debian/rules file. This
>
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> > > + source to the debian/rules f
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 04:07:01PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Both cases where I used 'must' do not make packages instantly buggy,
> > since they only apply to the 'source' target (that is the idea, at
> > least; if the wor
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I'm hereby rescinding all previous proposals I made on #250202, to
> replace them with the following:
>
> --- policy.sgml.orig 2005-04-26 11:02:02.0 +0200
> +++ policy.sgml 2005-04-26 11:28:10.0 +0200
> (...)
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> > + source to the debian/rules file. This
> > + target, if present, should unpack source archives
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> + source to the debian/rules file. This
> + target, if present, should unpack source archives, apply
> + patches, generate files, and generally prepare the
Hi,
There have been two suggestions to fix this issue:
* Mandate common names for debian/rules targets,
* Use a debian/README.source to document used debian/rules targets.
At first sight, these seem to be conflicting, especially if one
considers Bill's objection to suggesting names. However, as I
22 matches
Mail list logo
