On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> [ M-F-T set to -qa@ ]
>
> Hi,
>
> I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
>
> I wonder if we should use the start of the next release cycle to decide
> that we no longer want to accept some packaging practices, su
Hi Lucas,
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 09:36:10AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Trends is just based on what lintian reports, and in that case, lintian
> thinks that's the case, see https://lintian.debian.net/sources/probcons
Thanks for the clarification.
> It looks like this package ships both deb
On 17/04/21 at 08:08 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
>
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
>
> Thanks a lot for Debian Trends. I have checked the code smells[1] for
> I think this is a false positi
Hi Lucas,
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
Thanks a lot for Debian Trends. I have checked the code smells[1] for
I think this is a false positive:
probcons (U) does not use the machine-readable
On 13/04/21 at 11:18 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Hi Lucas
>
> I would like to add:
>
> - Removing Berkeley DB.
To clarify, I was focusing on stuff that is already tracked via Trends.
Lucas
Hi Lucas
I would like to add:
- Removing Berkeley DB.
Bastian
--
Violence in reality is quite different from theory.
-- Spock, "The Cloud Minders", stardate 5818.4
Hi,
On 08/04/21 at 09:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
>
> Thank you.
> I noted that the dates in the "smells" sections are still old. Could
> you perhaps refresh those d
Hello Lucas,
On Wed 07 Apr 2021 at 02:03PM +02, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
There are still some reasons to use this source format, and so I think
if we mandated this all that would happen is people would switch to 1.0
(native) wh
Hi,
On 08/04/21 at 09:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
>
> Thank you.
> I noted that the dates in the "smells" sections are still old. Could
> you perhaps refresh those d
Hi Lucas
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
For this I disagree. At least until we have something acceptable that
can be used in modern git workflows including operations like cherry
picking and
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:26:31PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:06:46AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
> >
> > Also dpatch. And also 1.0+quilt (ugh). !
> What's left then? Only packages that
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:06:46AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
>
> Also dpatch. And also 1.0+quilt (ugh). !
What's left then? Only packages that don't patch the upstream sources at
all?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Desc
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
Thank you.
I noted that the dates in the "smells" sections are still old. Could
you perhaps refresh those data as well, so that we have a better idea if
things today are even
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 12:05:43PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> > - no support for build-arch and build-indep
> That seems fine, but I'm not sure I'm knowledgeable enough to say for
> certain. I assume that these Just Work if I'm using modern debhelper?
You mean "dh"? Yes.
Bastian
--
Bones:
On 4/7/21 2:03 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I wonder if [...] we no longer want to accept some packaging practices, such
> as:
> - debhelper compat level << 9
> - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
> - no support for build-arch and build-indep
excellent.. to all th
On 4/7/21 7:03 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I wonder if we should use the start of the next release cycle to decide
that we no longer want to accept some packaging practices, such as:
- debhelper compat level << 9
- source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
+1 to those
I
16 matches
Mail list logo
