Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 19:42, Brian May wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 01:47:05AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > I like dput's DWIM features. For example, it figures out automatically > > whether or not a package is in non-US, and uploads to the correct > > place. > > This may not be as much use now non-us is being moved to main... Not all of non-US. > How does it determine the archive? Just by peeking at the Section: control file header, I think. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 01:47:05AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > I like dput's DWIM features. For example, it figures out automatically > whether or not a package is in non-US, and uploads to the correct > place. This may not be as much use now non-us is being moved to main... How does it determine the archive? It might be useful if it could automatically determine that some packages should get uploaded to my private archive (because they can't go in Debian yet for various reasons), and other packages go to ftp-master. -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 01:47:05AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 20:53, Brian May wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:40:47AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > I am happy to take it. But a question: with the more actively > > > maintained dput now being quite mature, do we still need both dupload > > > and dput? > > Dumb question, but what dput, and why is one better then the other? > > (please leave language flame wars out of discussion - we all know that > > is the best language). > I like dput's DWIM features. For example, it figures out automatically > whether or not a package is in non-US, and uploads to the correct > place. Works great, except the time I was trying to move a package to main from non-US as part of the crypto-in-main rollout, and dput sent the package to non-US even though the section listed in the local package clearly didn't point there. :) Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpkVO3gGVFSN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 01:47:05AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > > I am happy to take it. But a question: with the more actively > > > maintained dput now being quite mature, do we still need both dupload > > > and dput? > > > > Dumb question, but what dput, and why is one better then the other? > > (please leave language flame wars out of discussion - we all know that > > is the best language). > > I like dput's DWIM features. For example, it figures out automatically > whether or not a package is in non-US, and uploads to the correct > place. The next version of dupload will do the same, it's easy to implement :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 20:53, Brian May wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:40:47AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > I am happy to take it. But a question: with the more actively > > maintained dput now being quite mature, do we still need both dupload > > and dput? > > Dumb question, but what dput, and why is one better then the other? > (please leave language flame wars out of discussion - we all know that > is the best language). I like dput's DWIM features. For example, it figures out automatically whether or not a package is in non-US, and uploads to the correct place. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:40:47AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > I am happy to take it. But a question: with the more actively > maintained dput now being quite mature, do we still need both dupload > and dput? Dumb question, but what dput, and why is one better then the other? (please leave language flame wars out of discussion - we all know that is the best language). Thanks. -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:29:04AM +, Wilmer van der Gaast <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> Julian [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:40:47 +0100:
> > I am happy to take it. But a question: with the more actively
> > maintained dput now being quite mature, do we still need both dupload
> > and dput?
> >
> *Ugh* Why are those nifty Perl scripts going to be replaced by Python
> stuff?
>
> (Don't tell me someone's working on a Python debhelper rewrite...)
(define-rule 'binary
('binary-indep 'binary-arch))
(define-rule 'binary-arch
()
(deb:test-dir)
(deb:install-docs)
(deb:install-examples "src/test1.cc" "src/test2.cc")
(deb:install-menu)
(deb:install-manpages)
(deb:install-changelogs "ChangeLog")
(deb:link)
(deb:strip)
(deb:compress)
(deb:fixperms)
(deb:installdeb)
(deb:shlibdeps)
(deb:gencontrol)
(deb:md5sums)
(deb:builddeb))
(just kidding >=) )
Daniel
--
/ Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\
| A conclusion is the place |
| where you got tired of thinking. |
\--- Listener-supported public radio -- NPR -- http://www.npr.org /
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
"Tille, Andreas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The same for bug/reportbug. > Or you could just write an E-Mail to BTS or write your > own super duper bug reporting tool. Yes you could, like debian-bug.el ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:14:34PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > An excellent point. We *should* be more aggressive about dumping things > > no one wants to maintain. So why did you attack someone who raised a > > question about one particular package? The question was answered, move > > You got me wrong. I talked about packages noone uses, not about > packages noone wants to maintain, this is quite different. > On the one side, there are packages that noone maintains and > that noone cares about their removal. On the other side, there > are unmaintained packages that have a lot of users. I'm not > in favour of removing the latter. But arguably one is not far from the other, no? If none of our ... how many developers have we got now? If one of them has any interest in the package, it could be expected that very few people actually use the package. A few exceptions exist, but I suspect not many. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>This thing is an AI * joeyh_ wonders if linux is supposed to lock up when you ask 100 processes to cat the entire cd drive pgpZvKWHR5Wb9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
> > [1] Unless someone actually tries to embed arbitrary pthon in it. dput's config is not python code. It is parsed by ConfigParser which is essentially ini style. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
Colin Watson wrote: > The implementation language really does make a difference in the case of > dupload and dput, since it affects their configuration languages. There exist perl modules to parse files more or less identical to dput's configuration file[1]. Heck, it should take about 5 lines of code to roll your own. Going the other way would indeed by somewhat harder. :-) FWIW, I have been using dupload for ages and ages. I tried dput when it first came out, and found it couldn't begin to meet my needs[2]. I filed a bunch of bug reports, tried it again a bit later and filed more bug reports, and gave up on it. I tried it again last night, and it's all the way there for me, and it was easy to drop dupload in its favor. Especailly since dupload has well-known, never fixed bugs like #85779. Those like me who've been avoiding dput because of bad first impressions or inertia will find it's well past time for a second or third look at it. -- see shy jo [1] Unless someone actually tries to embed arbitrary pthon in it. [2] I upload everything twice, to two locations and have some post-upload hooks and stuff like that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:29:55PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > I am happy to take it. > > > > Several people already stepped in (which, IMHO, replies to the "Do we > > need dupload?" question). See the bug report. Josip Rodin was the > > first one, even before I formally orphaned it. > > Fine with me! doogie also replied with an ITA, but several hours late. Sorry :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:43:20PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:40:47AM +0100, > Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 24 lines which said: > > > I am happy to take it. > > Several people already stepped in (which, IMHO, replies to the "Do we > need dupload?" question). See the bug report. Josip Rodin was the > first one, even before I formally orphaned it. Fine with me! Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/ Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/ Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:46:48AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > Internal examination. How about talking about those tons of orphaned > > packages that noone uses rather that discussing about whether we have > > to keep one out of two small tools which have both many users? > > An excellent point. We *should* be more aggressive about dumping things > no one wants to maintain. So why did you attack someone who raised a > question about one particular package? The question was answered, move You got me wrong. I talked about packages noone uses, not about packages noone wants to maintain, this is quite different. On the one side, there are packages that noone maintains and that noone cares about their removal. On the other side, there are unmaintained packages that have a lot of users. I'm not in favour of removing the latter. > on. No one's preventing anyone from doing anything, just asking > questions. Alright. Let's forget about this. -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:57:45PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Stop this aggressive rant. Please read the thread and come back if you > want to really discuss this a serious way. Aggressive rant? You're the one who accused someone of somehow deciding what people could work on. > Internal examination. How about talking about those tons of orphaned > packages that noone uses rather that discussing about whether we have > to keep one out of two small tools which have both many users? An excellent point. We *should* be more aggressive about dumping things no one wants to maintain. So why did you attack someone who raised a question about one particular package? The question was answered, move on. No one's preventing anyone from doing anything, just asking questions. -- Mike Stone pgph04Lk79Emp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:35:00AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:14:55PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Developers decide what they want to do with their time. Period. > > You are not in a position to decide what you want them to work on. > > (Yawns) Once again, the defensive fury when someone asks a question. > Please, could you tell me how he was deciding the manner in which > someone could spend their time? Was he going to assign all developers a > task plan? Was he going to physically bar access to a computer until > such time as we followed his plan? Was he going to declare himself > emporer of the project and force his will by fiat? He *asked a frickin' > question* This is a rhetorical device employed to make people > examine the issue and *decide for themselves* whether there's merit in > the question raised. How are you in a position to tell him what > questions he might ask or opinions he might hold? People involved in a Stop this aggressive rant. Please read the thread and come back if you want to really discuss this a serious way. > project like this do occasionally need to ask themselves what their > goals are and whether their activities are furthering those goals. This > internal examination is not a bad thing. Period. Internal examination. How about talking about those tons of orphaned packages that noone uses rather that discussing about whether we have to keep one out of two small tools which have both many users? -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, [iso-8859-1] Jérôme Marant wrote: > Stop talking about one's time. I won't repeat myself. The discussion started because someone stated that he has not enough time. Moreover I talked about a second aspect: Confusing users. I'll now save my time and stop posting to this thread. Kind regards Andreas. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:28:14AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:14:55PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > > It would be better for users if we would say: "Just use reportbug > > > of you want to report a bug." Now we have to say you could use > > > reportbug or bug - just try it out and waste your time with this > > > trial. Or you could just write an E-Mail to BTS or write your > > > own super duper bug reporting tool. > > > > Stop talking about one's time. I won't repeat myself. > > He's talking about doing the right thing for users. Novel concept I do > realize, but an important one all the same. Stop the bullshit. Recommending reportbug does not mean removing everything else that does the same job. Freedom is also about using the tool you prefer. Users have to know that there are elternatives. -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:40:47AM +0100, Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 24 lines which said: > I am happy to take it. Several people already stepped in (which, IMHO, replies to the "Do we need dupload?" question). See the bug report. Josip Rodin was the first one, even before I formally orphaned it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:14:55PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Developers decide what they want to do with their time. Period. > You are not in a position to decide what you want them to work on. (Yawns) Once again, the defensive fury when someone asks a question. Please, could you tell me how he was deciding the manner in which someone could spend their time? Was he going to assign all developers a task plan? Was he going to physically bar access to a computer until such time as we followed his plan? Was he going to declare himself emporer of the project and force his will by fiat? He *asked a frickin' question* This is a rhetorical device employed to make people examine the issue and *decide for themselves* whether there's merit in the question raised. How are you in a position to tell him what questions he might ask or opinions he might hold? People involved in a project like this do occasionally need to ask themselves what their goals are and whether their activities are furthering those goals. This internal examination is not a bad thing. Period. -- Mike Stone pgpH2HBjiN2gR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:14:55PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > It would be better for users if we would say: "Just use reportbug > > of you want to report a bug." Now we have to say you could use > > reportbug or bug - just try it out and waste your time with this > > trial. Or you could just write an E-Mail to BTS or write your > > own super duper bug reporting tool. > > Stop talking about one's time. I won't repeat myself. He's talking about doing the right thing for users. Novel concept I do realize, but an important one all the same. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> My opinions are always right *XawMMS*!?! you've gotta be KIDDING me pgpi3uzbm3oMO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:13:14PM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote: > > Same thing for simple tools. > I can't see any real reason in which way two tools to upload Debian > packages make Debian better. Please give an explanation for such > stubborn and stupid people like me. In my eyes it would be a waste > of time for developers. Developers decide what they want to do with their time. Period. You are not in a position to decide what you want them to work on. > > The same for bug/reportbug. Reportbug is much more developed and > takes the user at his hand and lead through the report much more > sophisticated than bug. As long as someone is willing to develop bug, bug will exist. > > It would be better for users if we would say: "Just use reportbug > of you want to report a bug." Now we have to say you could use > reportbug or bug - just try it out and waste your time with this > trial. Or you could just write an E-Mail to BTS or write your > own super duper bug reporting tool. Stop talking about one's time. I won't repeat myself. > > You might have noticed that freedom every time has a price. One > important part of this price in the Free Software world is developer > time. I wanted to decrease this price a little bit. May be this > opens the resource to write some software which does not exist yet. Once again. Stop talking about developers's time. We are not working for a company, but for a free software project. -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:13:14PM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote: [..snip..] > The same for bug/reportbug. Reportbug is much more developed and > takes the user at his hand and lead through the report much more > sophisticated than bug. > > It would be better for users if we would say: "Just use reportbug > of you want to report a bug." Now we have to say you could use > reportbug or bug - just try it out and waste your time with this > trial. Or you could just write an E-Mail to BTS or write your > own super duper bug reporting tool. Oh, come on. People have different preferences so they use different tools. We can (and should) make recommendations but thats all. -- Guido -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Colin Watson wrote: > > IMHO two tools with the same functionality are > > 1. confusing for users > > 2. waste of time for developers. They should spend their time > > to make one better tool instead of two good tools. > > The implementation language really does make a difference in the case of > dupload and dput, since it affects their configuration languages. Hmm, this is in fact a reason I did not considered. Thanks for the clarification. Kind regards Andreas. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, [iso-8859-1] Jérôme Marant wrote: > Welcome to the Free Software world. Hmm, I've thought I would just be here. :) > There are plenty of editors, MUA, MTA and so on because people > want to have fun doing something (and often learning from this > experience), even if it does already exist. In my opinion several Editors, MUA etc. make sense because of there different functionality, use of resources, etc. > Same thing for simple tools. I can't see any real reason in which way two tools to upload Debian packages make Debian better. Please give an explanation for such stubborn and stupid people like me. In my eyes it would be a waste of time for developers. The same for bug/reportbug. Reportbug is much more developed and takes the user at his hand and lead through the report much more sophisticated than bug. It would be better for users if we would say: "Just use reportbug of you want to report a bug." Now we have to say you could use reportbug or bug - just try it out and waste your time with this trial. Or you could just write an E-Mail to BTS or write your own super duper bug reporting tool. You might have noticed that freedom every time has a price. One important part of this price in the Free Software world is developer time. I wanted to decrease this price a little bit. May be this opens the resource to write some software which does not exist yet. Kind regards Andreas. PS: BTW: I use dupload myself but I would not have any problem to leave it in favour of dput if dupload would be dropped. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:29:04AM +, Wilmer van der Gaast wrote: > > I am happy to take it. But a question: with the more actively > > maintained dput now being quite mature, do we still need both dupload > > and dput? > > > *Ugh* Why are those nifty Perl scripts going to be replaced by Python > stuff? > > (Don't tell me someone's working on a Python debhelper rewrite...) bug, dupload, and lintian are getting Python rewrites because people who like that laugnage think they can do better. I'd have to agree that both reportbug and dput are (though dput was not when I first tried it - weird problems that have resolved themselves with a few more revisions..) We'll see about linda. If you think you can make a better tool than one that exists, make it. I don't care what you write it in as long as it works well. I don't think anyone else does either. =) -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You want fries with that? Since this database is not used for profit, and since entire works are not published, it falls under fair use, as we understand it. However, if any half-assed idiot decides to make a profit off of this, they will need to double check it all... -- Notes included with the default fortunes database pgpR6H8fCARvn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:29:02AM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote: > On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > I am happy to take it. But a question: with the more actively > > maintained dput now being quite mature, do we still need both dupload > > and dput? > > IMHO two tools with the same functionality are > 1. confusing for users > 2. waste of time for developers. They should spend their time > to make one better tool instead of two good tools. The implementation language really does make a difference in the case of dupload and dput, since it affects their configuration languages. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
Julian [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:40:47 +0100: > I am happy to take it. But a question: with the more actively > maintained dput now being quite mature, do we still need both dupload > and dput? > *Ugh* Why are those nifty Perl scripts going to be replaced by Python stuff? (Don't tell me someone's working on a Python debhelper rewrite...) -- *=-+-__ |[EMAIL PROTECTED]: _ Ugh! Nio2f says something: __ : http://www.lintux.cx/ |/ of load debian gilbeine httpww.ma \ ~~-+-=-+~+-=* -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:29:02AM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote: > On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > I am happy to take it. But a question: with the more actively > > maintained dput now being quite mature, do we still need both dupload > > and dput? > IMHO two tools with the same functionality are > 1. confusing for users > 2. waste of time for developers. They should spend their time > to make one better tool instead of two good tools. Welcome to the Free Software world. There are plenty of editors, MUA, MTA and so on because people want to have fun doing something (and often learning from this experience), even if it does already exist. Same thing for simple tools. -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Julian Gilbey wrote: > I am happy to take it. But a question: with the more actively > maintained dput now being quite mature, do we still need both dupload > and dput? IMHO two tools with the same functionality are 1. confusing for users 2. waste of time for developers. They should spend their time to make one better tool instead of two good tools. Kind regards Andreas. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:26:25PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Package: wnpp > Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-08 > Severity: normal > > Sorry, folks, but it is clear I have not enough time to work seriously > on a package like dupload, which is important and should be handled > with care. > > I leave it to someone more active. I am happy to take it. But a question: with the more actively maintained dput now being quite mature, do we still need both dupload and dput? Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/ Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/ Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#141847: O: dupload -- Utility to upload Debian packages.
Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-04-08 Severity: normal Sorry, folks, but it is clear I have not enough time to work seriously on a package like dupload, which is important and should be handled with care. I leave it to someone more active. There are many bugs reported but most are minor and a lot of patches arealready in the BTS. -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux ludwigV 2.2.17 #9 Fri Feb 2 21:55:59 CET 2001 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
