Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> I am fine with Source field permitting free-form text, as long as the
> scope of that field is limited to covering the question "where did
> upstream release the source that was the main basis for this package?"
I think where we're disagreeing is that I don't see any r
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 07:17:59PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:23:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
It seems like overkill to me, but I guess I don't really care. But
if the source is only URLs, then for some of my packages I either
need to
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:23:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> It seems like overkill to me, but I guess I don't really care. But if
>> the source is only URLs, then for some of my packages I either need to
>> omit it or duplicate Homepage, since I don't use any tarb
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:23:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
To me, "Source:" contains origins. Makes sense to me for that field
to be mandatory and only contain URLs.
I would like an optional field indicating that our redistribute as
the "source" (rather than our
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> To me, "Source:" contains origins. Makes sense to me for that field to
> be mandatory and only contain URLs.
> I would like an optional field indicating that our redistribute as the
> "source" (rather than our "overlay" part in the form of either a patch
> or (with dp
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 05:35:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
Makes sense to me.
Let's define only a single free-form field in the header section now.
I suggest it then be a field specifically for notes regarding source
not being "pristine" in the sense that the
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Makes sense to me.
> Let's define only a single free-form field in the header section now.
> I suggest it then be a field specifically for notes regarding source not
> being "pristine" in the sense that the form as redistributed by Debian is
> different from how it wa
On 09/09/2010 10:16 AM, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Given that the reasons for such a change request can be considered
> something rather personal it should be considered at the discretion of
> the person to publish it.
i was not talking about the reason of the change, but the change itself.
--
Add
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:23:27PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:05:57PM +0200, Simon Paillard wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> >> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
> >> since the Early Days,
> >[..
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:05:57PM +0200, Simon Paillard wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
>> since the Early Days,
>[..]
>> So, for the past years we have had x.0.y with growing `y' for point
>
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
> since the Early Days,
[..]
> So, for the past years we have had x.0.y with growing `y' for point
> releases, and skiping to (x+1).0.0. And the zero in the middle carri
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:13:35 -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 01:58:51PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > The .0 actually has quite a bit relevance since it signifies a new
> > major long-term release. It also demonstrates stability when used in
> > conjunction with the thir
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 01:58:51PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> The .0 actually has quite a bit relevance since it signifies a new
> major long-term release. It also demonstrates stability when used in
> conjunction with the third digit. 6.0.1 seems like a rather minor
> update, which accurate
* Charles Plessy (ple...@debian.org) [100913 16:25]:
> > Is this a good way of doing that? The referred-to e-mail says that an
> > XS-Autobuild header in the debian/control (not copyright) file is
> > required. Is there a need for a particular header for this in
> > debian/copyright? Would not the
On 09/14/2010 07:58 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:25:25 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
>> since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
>> (3.1 - But by the time it was finally r
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:25:25 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
> since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
> (3.1 - But by the time it was finally released, some discussion was
> made whether Sarge sho
Hi,
We have carried a major.minor scheme as a release numbering scheme
since the Early Days, but it has lost relevance basically since Sarge
(3.1 - But by the time it was finally released, some discussion was
made whether Sarge should be 4.0 as the difference from Woody was
already too large, to w
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:57:28PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ti, 2010-09-14 at 00:07 +0100, Stuart Prescott wrote:
Personally, I'd like a nice machine-readable list of files/dirs/globs
that should be removed from the tarball. I'd like it to be kept in a
canonical location in the source ta
On ti, 2010-09-14 at 00:07 +0100, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> Personally, I'd like a nice machine-readable list of files/dirs/globs that
> should be removed from the tarball. I'd like it to be kept in a canonical
> location in the source tarball (debian/copyright, perhaps?)
This all sounds good, with
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 14:54 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There should still be an explanation in debian/copyright of what that
> script does, since that's the Policy-required location for specifying
> where the upstream source came from.
Oh, I thought only devref was requiring that to be in debian/
Hello
As discussed on Lars' blog [1], I've written an explanation [2] on the
creation of a DEP-5 parser using Config::Model.
I'll release the code soon first on CPAN, then in Debian's libconfig-model-
perl package.
All the best
[1] http://blog.liw.fi/posts/debian-plans/
[2] http://ddumont.word
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:07:21AM +0100, Stuart Prescott wrote:
- if the transformation can be expressed as a script, use
"debian/rules get-orig-source"
Since the purpose of the get-orig-source target seems to have become
unclear over time, this doesn't sound like a good plan to me. The
part
[ Draft GR text below, look for "-". M-F-T set to -vote. ]
Dear Debian project,
in recent events I've attended as DPL, the topic of welcoming
non-packaging contributors as project members has been a recurring one.
Since it was also part of my platform and since DPL terms don't last
forever,
23 matches
Mail list logo
