Re: RFS: proxycheck -- link
отправлено в группы и по почте Christoph Haas wrote: Found it. Checked it. Uploaded it. Thank you. Minor thoughts on the package: - Please don't change past entries in the changelog even though I understand that you wanted to correct the line wrapping. Yes, i understand such the necessity. - Consider using dpatch for changing the upstream sources. You may find it easier to keep or remove patches when the next upstream version is released. Thanks, probably i should realize the dpatch's advantage. Is there any article about it? - I assume you have sent your patches upstream already. I did. -- Regards, Al Nikolov JID [EMAIL PROTECTED]IRC clown UIN 312108671 PGP 4B50 F1E3 080C 21A2 91F4 8BF0 CD60 3B5A 2ECF 984B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dpatch vs. quilt [was: Re: RFS: proxycheck -- link]
Frank Küster wrote: There are also other alternatives to dpatch; one is Debian-specific and i keep forgetting its name, and there's quilt. The main advantage of quilt IMHO is that it doesn't duplicate the whole tree when editing and updating the patch, which can be time- and disk-consuming in large projects. Instead it keeps a list of files for the patch one is editing and only keeps copies of these. Out of curiosity, does quilt have a mechanism similar to dpatch that allows you to treat shell scripts as patches? My inability to find such a feature was the main reason I opted for dpatch over quilt in the Cernlib package -- I needed to move a bunch of files around within the source, and doing so with a pure patch system will result in huge and fragile diff files (two copies of each file to be moved, which breaks if upstream changes any of them!). But now it sounds like I'm missing out on some features by not using quilt. regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpatch vs. quilt [was: Re: RFS: proxycheck -- link]
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 11:39:17AM -0500, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: Frank K?ster wrote: There are also other alternatives to dpatch; one is Debian-specific and i keep forgetting its name, Are you thinking of dbs? Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpatch vs. quilt [was: Re: RFS: proxycheck -- link]
* Kevin B. McCarty [Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:39:17 -0500]: Frank Küster wrote: There are also other alternatives to dpatch; one is Debian-specific and i keep forgetting its name, and there's quilt. The main advantage of quilt IMHO is that it doesn't duplicate the whole tree when editing and updating the patch, which can be time- and disk-consuming in large projects. Instead it keeps a list of files for the patch one is editing and only keeps copies of these. That (speed), together with `quilt refresh` to get rid of fuzzyness (perhaps dpatch has it as well, I don't know) have made me a fan of quilt recently. Plus other goodies, like --no-timestamps. With respect to speed, it must be that most people use it in small trees, 'cause the couple times I've tried to use for some package of mine, the source was not small and it was unbearable. I also found out that the dpatch author was not quite well aware of this, since he has /tmp in RAM, or so he said. But when prompted about the problem on IRC, he said he'd consider copying the tree with hardlinks, which should help. Out of curiosity, does quilt have a mechanism similar to dpatch that allows you to treat shell scripts as patches? My inability to find such a feature was the main reason I opted for dpatch over quilt in the Cernlib package -- I needed to move a bunch of files around within the source, and doing so with a pure patch system will result in huge and fragile diff files (two copies of each file to be moved, which breaks if upstream changes any of them!). No, in quilt patches are patches, not scripts. :) Why don't you move files around in debian/rules, anyway? Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: María del Monte - Que también es de Sevilla -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpatch vs. quilt [was: Re: RFS: proxycheck -- link]
* Adeodato Simó [Mon, 30 Jan 2006 04:08:52 +0100]: With respect to speed, (Er, sorry; this paragraph refers to dpatch, which isn't immediately clear.) it must be that most people use it in small trees, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: María del Monte - Fue tu querer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: proxycheck -- link
Hi, Al... On Friday 27 January 2006 20:20, Al Nikolov wrote: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/proxycheck/ Found it. Checked it. Uploaded it. Minor thoughts on the package: - Please don't change past entries in the changelog even though I understand that you wanted to correct the line wrapping. - Consider using dpatch for changing the upstream sources. You may find it easier to keep or remove patches when the next upstream version is released. - I assume you have sent your patches upstream already. Kindly Christoph -- Never trust a system administrator who wears a tie and suit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: proxycheck -- link
Hi. Christoph Haas wrote: - Please don't change past entries in the changelog even though I understand that you wanted to correct the line wrapping. Correcting factual mistakes or typos in the changelog seems to be accepted practice and I can't really see the harm of doing so with the line wrapping and such as long as all information is preserved... - Consider using dpatch for changing the upstream sources. You may find it easier to keep or remove patches when the next upstream version is released. It's good to know the option, but for minor changes that are likely to either be kept or accepted upstream, I've found it easier to use the original patch. I don't think you (Christoph) wanted to require it - otherwise you wouldn't have uploaded the package - but for the casual reader, it could be even clearer that this is a matter of preference and consideration on a case by case basis. Kind regards T. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: proxycheck -- link
On Saturday 28 January 2006 18:57, Thomas Viehmann wrote: Christoph Haas wrote: - Please don't change past entries in the changelog even though I understand that you wanted to correct the line wrapping. Correcting factual mistakes or typos in the changelog seems to be accepted practice and I can't really see the harm of doing so with the line wrapping and such as long as all information is preserved... That was more a general hint because I have already seen major changes in the changelog in some sponsored packages. Changing line wraps surely is no problem. - Consider using dpatch for changing the upstream sources. You may find it easier to keep or remove patches when the next upstream version is released. It's good to know the option, but for minor changes that are likely to either be kept or accepted upstream, I've found it easier to use the original patch. I don't think you (Christoph) wanted to require it - otherwise you wouldn't have uploaded the package - but for the casual reader, it could be even clearer that this is a matter of preference and consideration on a case by case basis. In case I accidentally sounded like I wanted to enforce anything: that was just a hint for Al since many (new) maintainers don't know dpatch and happily patch around the upstream's source and sometimes start to get lost in it. In such a (rather simple) package it doesn't make much of a difference. Since I already uploaded the package I'm perfectly happy with it. Just wanted to give some hints that may perhaps be useful or just be ignored. In my first packages I hadn't used dpatch because nobody told me how to keep track of multiple patches and still keep my sanity. So I'm used to sometimes just give a hint even though nobody is listening. Hoping that I could convince you that I'm not just an egocentric sadistic sponsoree torturer... Christoph ;) -- Never trust a system administrator who wears a tie and suit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: proxycheck -- link
Christoph Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Consider using dpatch for changing the upstream sources. You may find it easier to keep or remove patches when the next upstream version is released. It's good to know the option, but for minor changes that are likely to either be kept or accepted upstream, I've found it easier to use the original patch. I don't think you (Christoph) wanted to require it - otherwise you wouldn't have uploaded the package - but for the casual reader, it could be even clearer that this is a matter of preference and consideration on a case by case basis. In case I accidentally sounded like I wanted to enforce anything: that was just a hint for Al since many (new) maintainers don't know dpatch and happily patch around the upstream's source and sometimes start to get lost in it. In such a (rather simple) package it doesn't make much of a difference. There are also other alternatives to dpatch; one is Debian-specific and i keep forgetting its name, and there's quilt. The main advantage of quilt IMHO is that it doesn't duplicate the whole tree when editing and updating the patch, which can be time- and disk-consuming in large projects. Instead it keeps a list of files for the patch one is editing and only keeps copies of these. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: RFS: proxycheck -- link
Al Nikolov wrote: Excuse me, forgot link to http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/proxycheck/ -- Regards, Al Nikolov JID [EMAIL PROTECTED]IRC clown UIN 312108671 PGP 4B50 F1E3 080C 21A2 91F4 8BF0 CD60 3B5A 2ECF 984B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
