On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Homepage: http://some-project.some-place.org/
>
> Please make sure that this line matches the regular
> expression `/^ Homepage: [^ ]*$/', as this allows
> `packages.debian.org' to parse it correctly.
Bac
Hello Andreas and *,
sorry for the late reply but I was some month not in Europe.
Am 2006-06-10 04:41:51, schrieb Andreas Barth:
> * Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060610 03:11]:
> > You can start without patching dpkg:
> >
> > Package: foo
> > ...
> > XB-Homepage: http://www.foo.org
Jörg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sure but adding entries to the changelog does not magically update the
> > date.
>
> AFAIK it happens if you use emacs. :-)
dpkg-dev-el provides debian-changelog-mode, and by default emacs will
visit de
I ended up writing this bash script:
http://trac.natalian.org/browser/debian/latest-package-update.sh
To print out the last modification of a (not installed) Debian package.
Thanks for all your help.
I wonder where do all the .changes files end up after an upload?
http://www.debian.org/doc/debi
* Goswin von Brederlow [Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:49:50 +0200]:
> David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:04:48PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>>> Sometimes, the changelog will tell you the package was last changed 3
>>> month ago while actually it was changed yesterd
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:04:48PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> [snip]
>> > Anyone who makes a change and doesn't put it in the changelog should
>> > be chastised. But I agree, it does
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 10:37:31PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:04:48PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Anyone who makes a change and doesn't put it in the changelog should
> > > be chastised
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:04:48PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
[snip]
> > Anyone who makes a change and doesn't put it in the changelog should
> > be chastised. But I agree, it does happen, and there may even be cases
>
> Sure but ad
Hallo Bill,
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
>> > > Date: [...] Talk to the dpkg maintainer
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060610 03:11]:
>> * Margarita Manterola [Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:35:54 -0300]:
>>
>> > So, in any case, I'd encourage you to patch dpkg to handle a new
>> > "Homepage" field, and submit the patch. Once this is being use
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060610 03:11]:
> * Margarita Manterola [Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:35:54 -0300]:
>
> > So, in any case, I'd encourage you to patch dpkg to handle a new
> > "Homepage" field, and submit the patch. Once this is being used by a
> > big number of packages, you might brin
* Margarita Manterola [Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:35:54 -0300]:
> So, in any case, I'd encourage you to patch dpkg to handle a new
> "Homepage" field, and submit the patch. Once this is being used by a
> big number of packages, you might bring this up again.
> I'd really like to have the Homepage field
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> pe, 2006-06-09 kello 22:04 +0200, Bill Allombert kirjoitti:
>> Sometimes, the changelog will tell you the package was last changed 3
>> month ago while actually it was changed yesterday and build and uploaded
>> today. This can lead you to go on a wild-
pe, 2006-06-09 kello 22:04 +0200, Bill Allombert kirjoitti:
> Sometimes, the changelog will tell you the package was last changed 3
> month ago while actually it was changed yesterday and build and uploaded
> today. This can lead you to go on a wild-goose chase if you do not know
> about the proble
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
>> > > Date: [...] Talk to the dpkg maintainers--
>> > >
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > Date: [...] Talk to the dpkg maintainers--
> > > they're free to implement this feature if they wan
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Kai Hendry wrote:
> I have two ideas that I would like to see in Debian.
>
> Two extra fields that show up in /var/lib/dpkg/available
That won't be accepted. There are many other fields which I would like
to have but which won't be integrated.
That's why we need that:
http:/
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060609 02:14]:
> Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Kai Hendry wrote:
>
> >> Many package descriptions have a Website: field already. It should just
> >> be in policy too, to promote this good helpful practice.
>
> > For now, it is in the developpe
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:51:52AM +0900, Kai Hendry wrote:
> On 2006-06-08T17:49-0700 Chris Waters wrote:
> > Until dpkg supports it, there's little point in debating it on -policy.
> So that's how it works? First dpkg implements the feature, then we can
> think about making it policy?
Basically
Hi!
On 6/8/06, Kai Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-06-08T17:49-0700 Chris Waters wrote:
> Until dpkg supports it, there's little point in debating it on -policy.
So that's how it works? First dpkg implements the feature, then we can
think about making it policy?
Actually, yes. That'
On 2006-06-08T17:49-0700 Chris Waters wrote:
> Until dpkg supports it, there's little point in debating it on -policy.
So that's how it works? First dpkg implements the feature, then we can
think about making it policy?
The devel-reference hack isn't working.
http://www.debian.org/doc/developer
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:19:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > URL: this has been discussed before many times. No reasonable argument
> > for making it a special field, rather than part of the package
> > description, has ever been put forth. The h
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> URL: this has been discussed before many times. No reasonable argument
> for making it a special field, rather than part of the package
> description, has ever been put forth. The homepage is a matter of
> interest to humans, not computers.
Except that
Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kai Hendry wrote:
>> Many package descriptions have a Website: field already. It should just
>> be in policy too, to promote this good helpful practice.
> For now, it is in the developper reference (and it is ' Homepage:' at
> the end of the long des
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Date: [...] Talk to the dpkg maintainers--
> > they're free to implement this feature if they want. It's not a
> > matter for policy.
> I agree it is not a matter fo
Kai Hendry wrote:
> Many package descriptions have a Website: field already. It should just
> be in policy too, to promote this good helpful practice.
For now, it is in the developper reference (and it is ' Homepage:' at
the end of the long description):
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-refer
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Date: no. This is pointless. The information is rarely of interest
> to anyone, and is already available to those who actually want to
> know, for whatever reason. And in any case, it has nothing to do with
> policy. Such a field c
Date: no. This is pointless. The information is rarely of interest
to anyone, and is already available to those who actually want to
know, for whatever reason. And in any case, it has nothing to do with
policy. Such a field could not be created manually. It would have to
be generated by dpkg-b
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:31:29AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Kai Hendry wrote:
> > One being Date:
> >
> > To show when the package was last touched. Currently I get this
> > information from the painfully from the "Latest News" section of the QA
> > page, e.g.: http://pac
On 2006-06-08T01:19-0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> You might as well start by looking for something like that, then just
> fall back upon anything that looks like a URL if there's no indication
> which url is the specific upstream location; putting this into the
> control file doesn't really make all
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Kai Hendry wrote:
> On 2006-06-08T00:31-0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Is there any reason why
> > zcat /usr/share/doc//changelog.Debian.gz |perl -ne \
> > 'next unless /^ -- .+?\s{2}(.+)$/; print $1,qq(\n) and exit;';
> > isn't sufficient for all non-native packages?
>
> What
On 2006-06-08T00:31-0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> Is there any reason why
> zcat /usr/share/doc//changelog.Debian.gz |perl -ne \
> 'next unless /^ -- .+?\s{2}(.+)$/; print $1,qq(\n) and exit;';
> isn't sufficient for all non-native packages?
What if that package isn't installed on your system?
It's
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Kai Hendry wrote:
> One being Date:
>
> To show when the package was last touched. Currently I get this
> information from the painfully from the "Latest News" section of the QA
> page, e.g.: http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/geomview.html
Is there any reason why
zcat /usr/sha
I have two ideas that I would like to see in Debian.
Two extra fields that show up in /var/lib/dpkg/available
One being Date:
To show when the package was last touched. Currently I get this
information from the painfully from the "Latest News" section of the QA
page, e.g.: http://packages.qa.deb
34 matches
Mail list logo
