Le Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:12:16AM +, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
You're not the DEP5 driver
Hi Lars and everybody,
I am driving this DEP and re-listed myself at a driver to mark that fact.
To summarise:
- The original idea, from Sam Hocevar, was posted on this list on August 4,
2007.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:58:11AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
judging by the current status list DEPs, the problem is more stalling than
accepting them too early. I admit that as DEP admins, we have not done a good
job at pinging DEP drivers. Because of the current confusion of roles on DEP
Le mercredi 18 janvier 2012 à 19:13 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
I'm not sure I see the point. DEP was never meant to be a device that
gives more power to anyone. It was just a device to keep track of a
discussion that was already happening, document it in some durable form,
and
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 05:36:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
“Dictator” is probably a bad term. See this as a chairman. Someone who
can judge when consensus has been reached, and mark a DEP as accepted.
This would avoid the countless and boring nitpicks by people who still
want to discuss
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 05:36:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
“Dictator” is probably a bad term. See this as a chairman. Someone who
can judge when consensus has been reached, and mark a DEP as accepted.
This would avoid the countless and boring nitpicks
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 09:38:29AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi writes:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 05:36:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
“Dictator” is probably a bad term. See this as a chairman. Someone who
can judge when consensus has been reached, and mark a
Le Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 09:38:29AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I think the concern that people have here (and I'm not sure yet whether it
is enough of a concern to warrant creating more administration) is that
the DEP driver is almost certainly going to have a vested interest in the
DEP
Le Monday 16 January 2012 19:15:07, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
Does a DEP-3 parser exist? And why not?
config-edit -appli dpkg (soon to become 'cme edit dpkg') is able to parse,
modify and save DEP-3 patches ( note that this command also deal with
debian/copyright, debian/control and some other
* Dominique Dumont d...@debian.org, 2012-01-18, 10:41:
Does a DEP-3 parser exist? And why not?
config-edit -appli dpkg (soon to become 'cme edit dpkg') is able to
parse, modify and save DEP-3 patches ( note that this command also deal
with debian/copyright, debian/control and some other debian
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:05:06AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 16 janvier 2012 à 18:07 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
I think the DPL should appoint a dictator who will rule on when
consensus has been achieved on a DEP.
(I originally interpreted this as being enclosed within
Le Wednesday 18 January 2012 18:41:44, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
config-edit -appli dpkg (soon to become 'cme edit dpkg') is able to
parse, modify and save DEP-3 patches ( note that this command also deal
with debian/copyright, debian/control and some other debian files).
Huh? What has dpkg to
* Dominique Dumont domi.dum...@free.fr, 2012-01-18, 19:37:
https://metacpan.org/source/DDUMONT/Config-Model-1.265/lib/Config/Model/Backend/Debian/Dpkg/Patch.pm
Judging by a quick look, it doesn't support dpatch patches[0] or
pseudo-headers[0][1].
[0] Don't ask what are these features good
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Dominique Dumont domi.dum...@free.fr wrote:
Le Wednesday 18 January 2012 18:41:44, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
And how do I use this parser? I want something as simple as: for a given
patch, check if the header complies to DEP-3 and if it does, dump it in
some
Le lundi 16 janvier 2012 à 18:07 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
I think the DPL should appoint a dictator who will rule on when
consensus has been achieved on a DEP.
Seconded. The DEP process is missing a clear way to make a DEP change
state. With a single-person (or small team) responsibility,
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
On 01/17/2012 01:44 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:14:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
well established, I just changed the
On 16/01/12 16:01, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
A CVE field, mandatory if a
CVE has been published for this patch and is the major component of this
patch, would allow easy tracing of patches back to CVE publications
later (for review perhaps, or by other distributions).
I wonder whether CVE IDs
On 2012-01-17 11:37, Simon McVittie wrote:
On 16/01/12 16:01, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
A CVE field, mandatory if a
CVE has been published for this patch and is the major component of
this
patch, would allow easy tracing of patches back to CVE publications
later (for review perhaps, or by
Le Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:07:54PM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES a écrit :
Yes one question do I need to document aclocal.m4 copyright patchwork ?
Dear Bastien,
judging from the packages that are accepted in our archive, the empirical
answer is no. Nevertheless, the DEP 5 format and any free-form
Hello,
FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
to ACCEPTED.
Of course this does not mean that the DEP-3 can't be extended or improved
(in particular when it doesn't break backwards
Hi,
FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
to ACCEPTED.
just because that you didn't get any reports you should not set a status
to ACCEPTED. IMHO the driver of a DEP should not do that
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 03:07:08PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
just because that you didn't get any reports you should not set a status
to ACCEPTED. IMHO the driver of a DEP should not do that at all, at
least not without asking on common lists first. No reaction on your DEP
could just mean
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
just because that you didn't get any reports you should not set a status
to ACCEPTED. IMHO the driver of a DEP should not do that at all, at
least not without asking on common lists first. No reaction on your DEP
could just mean that people
On 2012-01-16 15:02, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Does anyone have further comments about DEP-3? If so, please state
them. Otherwise, let's forget about the process details (no matter
if
they could have been better or not) and rejoice for a nice standard
way
of adding useful metadata to
Jonathan Wiltshire, 2012-01-16 17:01+0100:
It is only a small thing but I did not realise DEP-3 was still a
candidate or I would have spoken earlier. A CVE field, mandatory if a
CVE has been published for this patch and is the major component of this
patch, would allow easy tracing of
On 2012-01-16 16:43, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
Jonathan Wiltshire, 2012-01-16 17:01+0100:
It is only a small thing but I did not realise DEP-3 was still a
candidate or I would have spoken earlier. A CVE field, mandatory if
a
CVE has been published for this patch and is the major component of
this
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:14:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
to ACCEPTED.
Of course this does not mean that the DEP-3 can't be extended or
On 01/16/2012 07:14 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hello,
FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
to ACCEPTED.
Of course this does not mean that the DEP-3 can't be extended or improved
(in
On 16/01/12 18:33, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Also, does this mean that you've patched the policy, that lintian
would soon more aggressively complain about lacks of patch comments,
and that we'll have a new Standard-Version?
Lintian already complains when a quilt patch doesn't contain a
* Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org, 2012-01-16, 12:14:
FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's
already well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from
CANDIDATE to ACCEPTED.
Does a DEP-3 parser exist? And why not?
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Jon Dowland writes (Re: Patch Tagging Guidelines: DEP-3 moved to ACCEPTED
status):
Who should have that authority, then? The DEP-0 proposers? Since
the whole DEP process itself is still in CANDIDATE, we could end up
in an interesting situation if/when it comes to migrate *that* to
ACCEPTED
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I'm really not sure what makes you authoritative for it though,
and I'd like to understand (which doesn't conflict with the fact
I'm happy dep3 is in state ACCEPTED, and that you decided to
do it!).
I just did it as the DEP driver because I believe
On 01/17/2012 01:56 AM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 16/01/12 18:33, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Also, does this mean that you've patched the policy, that lintian
would soon more aggressively complain about lacks of patch comments,
and that we'll have a new Standard-Version?
Lintian already complains
On 01/17/2012 01:44 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:14:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
to ACCEPTED.
Of course this does
Le Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:14:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
FTR given that I got no reports of problems with DEP-3, that it's already
well established, I just changed the state of the DEP-3 from CANDIDATE
to ACCEPTED.
Of course this does not mean that the DEP-3 can't be extended or
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
Also, does this mean that you've patched the policy, that lintian would
soon more aggressively complain about lacks of patch comments, and that
we'll have a new Standard-Version?
No. DEP-3 is an optional standard.
I'm not sure if it should be
35 matches
Mail list logo
