Re: Using ‘export http_proxy = http://127.0.9.1:9/’ to fail noisily on dependency problems

2013-10-14 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Barry Warsaw , 2013-10-11, 11:03: The point of this recommendation is so that missing Build-Depends are exposed when you are testing your package builds locally. ACK If you omit them, your package will still properly FTBFS, but only on the buildds. Unless something changed recently, Debia

Re: Using ‘export http_proxy = http://127.0.9.1:9/’ to fail noisily on dependency problems

2013-10-14 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 10/14/2013 07:23 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Barry Warsaw , 2013-10-11, 11:03: >> The point of this recommendation is so that missing Build-Depends are >> exposed when you are testing your package builds locally. > > ACK > >> If you omit them, your package will still properly FTBFS, but only on

Using update-alternatives for /usr/bin provided binaries

2013-10-14 Thread Thomas Goirand
Hi everyone in the Python list! I've been working with Ben Finney on upgrading python-coverage to 3.7. I believe the package was in good shape before the upload, at the exception that /usr/bin/coverage isn't provided by the package. Ben opened but #726255 to track the issue. My proposal fix was t

Re: Using ‘export http_proxy = http://127.0.9.1:9/’ to fail noisily on dependency problems

2013-10-14 Thread Paul Wise
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I've read multiple times that they do. Could you show a build log where > something is downloaded? At around 24:30 in the DebConf13 cross-compiler BoF a discussion about -source packages, build-depends on foo:src/foo:build-deps and apt-get

Re: Using ‘export http_proxy = http://127.0.9.1:9/’ to fail noisily on dependency problems

2013-10-14 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:20:50AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > I've read multiple times that they do. Could you show a build log where > > something is downloaded? > At around 24:30 in the DebConf13 cross-compiler BoF a discussion about > -

Re: Using update-alternatives for /usr/bin provided binaries

2013-10-14 Thread Dmitry Shachnev
Hi all, On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Though, #726255 still needs a resolution, and I would like to have the > view of other Python module maintainers. Is using update-alternatives > the way to go? Was my commit correct? Is there any other (better) way to > do things he

Re: Using update-alternatives for /usr/bin provided binaries

2013-10-14 Thread Ben Finney
Thomas Goirand writes: > Hi everyone in the Python list! > > I've been working with Ben Finney on upgrading python-coverage to 3.7. I > believe the package was in good shape before the upload My heartfelt thanks to Thomas for working to help me improve the packaging of Coverage 3.7 to the point