On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 01:52:17PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
If I were sponsoring a -1 release of a package in which the maintainer
repackaged the upstream source, which is what I was originally
addressing, I would read the implementation of that target, read the
information in
Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A description of why and how the source was repackaged, should go in
README.Debian-source or a similar file.
This is a statement from the Developer's Reference that I think I disagree
with. I do already know it's there, so repeating it doesn't make it
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 11:53:20PM +0200, Frank Gevaerts wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 05:47:46PM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
Isn't debian/README.Debian the one you would like to edit?
It might be. However, the included information is (probably) not
useful to end users.
I use
On Sunday 30 April 2006 10:05, Russ Allbery wrote:
--snip--
One advantage of insisting on a get-orig-source target as part of the
review is that it ensures that the derivation of the .orig.tar.gz file is
automated and reproducible, making it easier and quicker to package the
*next* upstream
find release/$(deb_dir_name) -type d -name CVS | xargs rm -rf
You know about cvs export? This would spare you to having to delete
the CVS directories.
Best regards
Ben
--
Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not
originating from the mailing list will be
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:05:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-origtargz
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile
I think Policy
On Sunday 30 April 2006 12:41, Bart Martens wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:05:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-p
ractices.en.html#s-bpp-origtargz
Hi,
could someone sponsor xlife 5.0-7 for me please. It is just changes in
Build-Depends so it rebuilds against the new X11R7.
http://mrvn.homeip.net/xlife/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:09:21 +
Source: xlife
Binary: xlife
Benjamin Mesing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
find release/$(deb_dir_name) -type d -name CVS | xargs rm -rf
You know about cvs export? This would spare you to having to delete
the CVS directories.
But using cvs export also means I'd have to check-in every change I
want to test,
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 30 April 2006 10:05, Russ Allbery wrote:
Well, discussing it is exactly what I'm doing right now. :) Obviously
if I can't convince anyone here, there's no point in filing a bug
against the Developer's Reference for a change that has no
Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:05:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
One advantage of insisting on a get-orig-source target
Do you insist on a get-orig-source target while sponsoring? It's
currently optional according to the debian-policy.
On Sunday 30 April 2006 21:29, Russ Allbery wrote:
--cut--
No, I would instead say:
* Repackaging must be documented in debian/copyright, and if the
repackaging means that anything a user may expect to be present is
missing, that must be documented in README.Debian.
* A
On Sunday 30 April 2006 21:37, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:05:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
One advantage of insisting on a get-orig-source target
Do you insist on a get-orig-source target while sponsoring? It's
currently
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 11:37:09AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I repackage openafs, for instance, because upstream distributes OpenAFS as
two separate tarballs and dpkg support for multiple upstream source
tarballs is not yet available, because there's *one* file in the MacOS
packaging that
But using cvs export also means I'd have to check-in every change I
want to test, doesn't it?
Either that, or doing the changes in the export, and manually merging
the changes you've done back into your working directory.
Best regards,
Ben
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 30 April 2006 21:37, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't find get-orig-source as useful for normal packages that don't
require repackaging of upstream source. In that case, for the most
part, I don't think it's worth the effort.
Nobody says that
Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh no, I bet there's another point of DevRef contention for you ..
| 3. _should_, except where impossible for legal reasons, preserve the
| entire building and portablility infrastructure provided by the
| upstream author. For
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's next ? To have a unified (and sanely implemented) get-orig-source
target incorporated in debhelper | cdbs | dpatch to be reused by
interested packagers ?
I think this would be rather hard to do. At least for cases where the
source is being
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 05:22:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
could someone sponsor xlife 5.0-7 for me please. It is just changes in
Build-Depends so it rebuilds against the new X11R7.
http://mrvn.homeip.net/xlife/
I'm on it.
--
Lionel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:21:49PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 05:22:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
could someone sponsor xlife 5.0-7 for me please. It is just changes in
Build-Depends so it rebuilds against the new X11R7.
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:06:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
Nobody says that get-orig-source must be only used for repackaging
purposes. I think it is fine to have such target just getting the
upstream source (ok a hash checking against a previously checked
and trusted version is required)
On Monday 01 May 2006 00:11, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:06:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
Nobody says that get-orig-source must be only used for repackaging
purposes. I think it is fine to have such target just getting the
upstream source (ok a hash checking against
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:21:49PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 05:22:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
could someone sponsor xlife 5.0-7 for me please. It is just changes in
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:01:43AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
[...]
Right. These are all good reasons to start hacking around ;-) but now I can
think of some troubles for autobuilder in case of upstream sites not
accesible at the package build time or incomplete/changes downloads being
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:44:16PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:21:49PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 05:22:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
could someone sponsor xlife 5.0-7 for me
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mv -f Makefile Makefile.bak
imake -DUseInstalled -I/usr/lib/X11/config
Imakefile.c:39: error: Imake.tmpl: No such file or directory
imake: Exit code 1.
Stop.
make: *** [build-stamp] Error 1
This
Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:21:49PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 05:22:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
could someone sponsor xlife 5.0-7 for me please. It is just changes in
Build-Depends so it rebuilds
27 matches
Mail list logo
