Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 01:19:31PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If not, why are you claiming to replace their code? It's fine to be writing something else to replace older code; but it's fairly rude to be claiming that whatever you're writing is the next generation of that older code Any rewrite will be a next generation of the previous thing. Wrong. It will be a new thing, not related to the previous thing. I don't see the harm in calling things what they actually are. It's rude. There were probably some hurt feelings on the Star Trek staff when Star Trek: TNG came around, but that's not sufficient justification to stop the writers of that show from calling it what they wanted to call it. This is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Even so: - The next generation in TNG is about the characters (who are a generation younger than the original series), not about the show. - The original guy who came up with the original star trek was also involved with TNG. -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121029145342.gj24...@grep.be
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Wrong. It will be a new thing, not related to the previous thing. It's evidently related: if not in terms of actual reused code but in terms of who is expected to use it and what it is to be used for. On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 01:19:31PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: I don't see the harm in calling things what they actually are. It's rude. In your opinion. I disagree. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121029145855.GA27366@debian
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 08:03:02AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: I'd prefer if such a tool could replace an existing one. Why not aim at replacing dput if there's a reason for it? I must concur. I can't see the reason for dput, dupload and dput-ng to co-exist. If dput-ng has the momentum and is a superset of the features of the previous two we should remove the previous two. I use the royal 'we', too often we hide behind our package-centric view of the world (package A is not actively maintained. Package B reimplements it. Removing Package A is inactive maintainer C's problem.). But having a plethora of similar-but-slightly-different tools to do the same job increase the surface area of stuff for beginners to navigate through and makes it that much harder for contributors to get a handle on things. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121029151928.GB27366@debian
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
I'd prefer if such a tool could replace an existing one. Why not aim at replacing dput if there's a reason for it? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
Hi, On 28.10.2012 08:03, Philipp Kern wrote: I'd prefer if such a tool could replace an existing one. Why not aim at replacing dput if there's a reason for it? As for us, we'd welcome that. However, that's primarily left to the current dput maintainer and his interest in that. Also note, we keep some backward compatibility but we are not entirely backwards compatible (but only a few users with edge case configurations should notice this). -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
* Arno Töll: dput-ng features many enhancements over dput, such as more comprehensive checks, an easy to use plugin system, and code designed to handle the numerous archives that any Debian package hacker will interact with. Does it prevent uploading security updates to the main archive by default? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ehkiiwjh@mid.deneb.enyo.de
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
Hi, On 28.10.2012 13:57, Florian Weimer wrote: Does it prevent uploading security updates to the main archive by default? Adam, with his Release Team hat on, suggested us to prevent this for t-p-u likewise. We have the infrastructure and possibilities to implement a check like this, and it is reasonably trivial to implement. For the time being we do not prevent this, but it is on our TODO already and the first version we upload to Debian will most likely feature such a check. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
On 28.10.2012 13:06, Arno Töll wrote: On 28.10.2012 13:57, Florian Weimer wrote: Does it prevent uploading security updates to the main archive by default? Adam, with his Release Team hat on, suggested us to prevent this for t-p-u likewise. I think it was p-u, but more as a grumble about an uncoordinated upload than necessarily an actual feature request. :-) Cheers, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/3b9ec2eaa4e63f654b76f849b1415...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
Hi, On 28.10.2012 14:15, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On 28.10.2012 13:06, Arno Töll wrote: On 28.10.2012 13:57, Florian Weimer wrote: Does it prevent uploading security updates to the main archive by default? Adam, with his Release Team hat on, suggested us to prevent this for t-p-u likewise. I think it was p-u, but more as a grumble about an uncoordinated upload than necessarily an actual feature request. :-) I implemented it nonetheless in [1] : Yes, I know it still lacks code name aliases, but that's something we are aware of. Also, the user prompting interface is not very clean yet :) [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/dputng.git;a=commitdiff;h=ae1121c8f0f872376689fe81ec49194d4bb35ae0 -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:15:47AM +0100, Arno Töll wrote: Hi, On 28.10.2012 08:03, Philipp Kern wrote: I'd prefer if such a tool could replace an existing one. Why not aim at replacing dput if there's a reason for it? As for us, we'd welcome that. However, that's primarily left to the current dput maintainer and his interest in that. Have you talked to the dput maintainer? If so, what were their answers? If not, why are you claiming to replace their code? It's fine to be writing something else to replace older code; but it's fairly rude to be claiming that whatever you're writing is the next generation of that older code, unless you're either the actual maintainer of said code, or the actual maintainer gave their assent. Calling something next generation implies that the older code is suddenly outdated or no longer useful or something similar; that may be your opinion, but that isn't necessarily true. So if you don't have the original maintainer's agreement to call this the next generation of their code, please be a bit more creative and give it a different name. After all, that was also what the dput maintainers did when they rewrote dupload. -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 05:25:20PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:15:47AM +0100, Arno Töll wrote: Hi, On 28.10.2012 08:03, Philipp Kern wrote: I'd prefer if such a tool could replace an existing one. Why not aim at replacing dput if there's a reason for it? As for us, we'd welcome that. However, that's primarily left to the current dput maintainer and his interest in that. Have you talked to the dput maintainer? No. So if you don't have the original maintainer's agreement to call this the next generation of their code, please be a bit more creative and give it a different name. After all, that was also what the dput maintainers did when they rewrote dupload. It maintains the same interface and is backwards compatible. The change between dput and dupload was big enough where they were totally different ways of solving the problem. We support old arguments, and will make it a point to make sure old setups are still compatable. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: If not, why are you claiming to replace their code? It's fine to be writing something else to replace older code; but it's fairly rude to be claiming that whatever you're writing is the next generation of that older code Any rewrite will be a next generation of the previous thing. I don't see the harm in calling things what they actually are. There were probably some hurt feelings on the Star Trek staff when Star Trek: TNG came around, but that's not sufficient justification to stop the writers of that show from calling it what they wanted to call it. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MPaaQDm03PocWUYaQ9CkFv17X0=q=v5aEeqimJ7=th...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 02:40:53PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote: Yes, I know it still lacks code name aliases, but that's something we are aware of. Also, the user prompting interface is not very clean yet :) Please make sure that it can be overridden on the commandline, thanks. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#691624: ITP: dput-ng -- next generation Debian package upload tool
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Arno Töll a...@debian.org Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Arno Töll a...@debian.org thanks * Package name: dput-ng Version : 1.0.0 Upstream Author : Arno Töll a...@debian.org, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org * URL : http://people.debian.org/~paultag/dput-ng * License : GPL-2+ Programming Lang: Python Description : next generation Debian package upload tool dput-ng is a Debian package upload tool which provides an easy to use inter- face to Debian (like) package archive hosting facilities. It allows anyone who works with Debian packages to upload their work to a remote service, including Debian's ftp-master, mentors.debian.net, Launchpad or other package hosting facilities for Debian package maintainers. dput-ng features many enhancements over dput, such as more comprehensive checks, an easy to use plugin system, and code designed to handle the numerous archives that any Debian package hacker will interact with. dput-ng aims to be backwards compatible with dput in command-line flags, configuration files, and expected behavior. Informal part in case someone is curious: Everyone interested can look at our work at http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/dputng.git. As of today dpdput-ng is ready to use for early adotors. Users should beware, this first version is just barely feature complete, so it's recommended for use by those who wish to provide early feedback or testing. That being said, the authors are running this on a daily basis, and most features in both dput and dcut have been tested in production. Problems are infrequent, but may cause breakage in these early stages. Having that said, we are not aware of any serious problem, and it can be used right away for most use cases Documentation on dput can be found in the -doc package built from this source, or at http://dput.rtfd.org/ Finally, as always: Contributions and suggestions are extremely welcome. Highlights: * Compatibility with dput.cf configuration files (old style configuration) * A new extremely flexible configuration format permitting inheritance of profiles * Pluggable interface for third party pre- and post-upload checks * A public Python API for those who want to embed dput in their own code * A detached user interface for a future dput GUI * Pluggable dcut command support (DM permission handling integrated!) * Support for SFTP uploader and SHA256 checksums * We avoid common and open issues with dput (old), including but not limited to the absence of hardcoded paths for commands, checking distribution mismatches, and more. Limitations: * We do not support all dput (old) configuration flags, most notable we do not have support for progress indication (yet) and we do not support run_dinstall (we believe this is barely used anymore these days but relies on SSH scraping instead) * We do not support method = rsync uploads (relies on SSH scraping again) * A few other options are not supported because they are superseded by (in our opinion) superior replacements * Command line options from dcut differ to the original -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121027171854.7370.20014.report...@snowball.fritz.box
