Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts version. (see [1]) Awesome, thanks for your work on that. That said, the choice of debian/copyright as the location for files to be excluded seems awkward/weird. I would have chosen debian/watch myself. Is it??? http://lists.debian.org/20131203194424.ga26...@gmail.com -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6fds-rmwcn1xaurvsyiddnfxbfoqzfnler9oyyzn6m...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
* Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu, 2013-12-04, 08:43: uscan to grow features for removing files from upstream tarballs, in a declarative way preferably. That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts version. (see [1]) So now you'll have to audit both d/watch and d/copyright before you can run uscan. *sigh* -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204081249.ga9...@jwilk.net
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Hi, On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:12:49AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu, 2013-12-04, 08:43: uscan to grow features for removing files from upstream tarballs, in a declarative way preferably. That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts version. (see [1]) So now you'll have to audit both d/watch and d/copyright before you can run uscan. *sigh* Well, there was a lenthy discussion, uscan bug, Wiki page trying to summarise everything. The people who contributed did not brought up your (and Paul's concern) and I guess Charles Plessy would have been in favour of using d/upstream. I do not think it is my fault if you did not raised you voice when it was time ... By the way: currently you also have to audit another file in addition to d/watch if you need to exclude some files. So the solution is not actually a step back - it is just more structured now. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204094106.gc22...@an3as.eu
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
* Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu, 2013-12-04, 10:41: uscan to grow features for removing files from upstream tarballs, in a declarative way preferably. That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts version. (see [1]) So now you'll have to audit both d/watch and d/copyright before you can run uscan. *sigh* AFAICS they way get_main_source_dir() is currently implemented lets malicious upstream to plant files in their tarball that would cause arbitrary code execution... Well, there was a lenthy discussion, uscan bug, Wiki page trying to summarise everything. The people who contributed did not brought up your (and Paul's concern) and I guess Charles Plessy would have been in favour of using d/upstream. I do not think it is my fault if you did not raised you voice when it was time ... https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/20130116133513.ga4...@jwilk.net By the way: currently you also have to audit another file in addition to d/watch if you need to exclude some files. Unless you knew in advance that there's nothing to exclude, which was most often the case, and you could guess it just by looking at version. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204103001.ga6...@jwilk.net
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
* Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org, 2013-12-04, 19:58: Well, there was a lenthy discussion, uscan bug, Wiki page trying to summarise everything. The people who contributed did not brought up your (and Paul's concern) and I guess Charles Plessy would have been in favour of using d/upstream. I do not think it is my fault if you did not raised you voice when it was time ... https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/20130116133513.ga4...@jwilk.net (actually https://lists.debian.org/20130116133513.ga4...@jwilk.net) D'oh. Hi Jakub, Debian has what its developers implement. I am sure that if somebody steps up and does the actual work of implementing a better solution and migrating the existing information, Andreas will complain. s/complain/comply/ perhaps? -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204111348.ga9...@jwilk.net
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Le Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 12:13:48PM +0100, Jakub Wilk a écrit : * Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org, 2013-12-04, 19:58: Well, there was a lenthy discussion, uscan bug, Wiki page trying to summarise everything. The people who contributed did not brought up your (and Paul's concern) and I guess Charles Plessy would have been in favour of using d/upstream. I do not think it is my fault if you did not raised you voice when it was time ... https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/20130116133513.ga4...@jwilk.net (actually https://lists.debian.org/20130116133513.ga4...@jwilk.net) D'oh. Hi Jakub, Debian has what its developers implement. I am sure that if somebody steps up and does the actual work of implementing a better solution and migrating the existing information, Andreas will complain. s/complain/comply/ perhaps? D'oh as well. Indeed, I meant will not complain, sorry for the noise... -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204114901.gd15...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:49:02PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: better solution and migrating the existing information, Andreas will complain. s/complain/comply/ perhaps? D'oh as well. Indeed, I meant will not complain, sorry for the noise... I think all readers had the proper mind reading abilities to understand you in the first place. ;-) I hereby confirm that I would have been more than happy if somebody else would have implementet the functionality before me or if somebody else will enhance it to something even better. Since all is machine readable some automatic migration would be quite easy to do. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204124710.gd22...@an3as.eu
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:30:01AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: AFAICS they way get_main_source_dir() is currently implemented lets malicious upstream to plant files in their tarball that would cause arbitrary code execution... Would you mind proposing a proper fix and forward it to the according bug report to let other people tha readers of debian-python know. Kind regards and thanks for any helpful hint Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204124831.ge22...@an3as.eu
Python 3 as default
I try to keep an eye on what other distros are doing w.r.t. Python 3. Here are Fedora's plans: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Py2to3GuidelineChanges Some of these things are not relevant to us (e.g. DNF vs. yum). Others are interesting from a Python-aficionado point of view (e.g. cloud-init and other upstreams). I'd like to start thinking about what it would mean for Python 3 to be the default Python in Debian. This is not what should /usr/bin/python point to - I think we're all largely in agreement that that shouldn't change, at least for the foreseeable future (re: PEP 394). Instead, I mean, what would it take for the basic Debian system to install Python 3 only by default, and have any system scripts that depend on Python be Python 3. Anyway, this is mostly just FYI for those who like to keep tabs on the competition. :) Maybe Python 3 as default would be a nice Jessie+1 release goal. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Python 3 as default
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@debian.org wrote: I try to keep an eye on what other distros are doing w.r.t. Python 3. Here are Fedora's plans: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Py2to3GuidelineChanges Some of these things are not relevant to us (e.g. DNF vs. yum). Others are interesting from a Python-aficionado point of view (e.g. cloud-init and other upstreams). I'd like to start thinking about what it would mean for Python 3 to be the default Python in Debian. This is not what should /usr/bin/python point to - I think we're all largely in agreement that that shouldn't change, at least for the foreseeable future (re: PEP 394). Instead, I mean, what would it take for the basic Debian system to install Python 3 only by default, and have any system scripts that depend on Python be Python 3. Anyway, this is mostly just FYI for those who like to keep tabs on the competition. :) Maybe Python 3 as default would be a nice Jessie+1 release goal. -Barry What is required for it to be an unofficial release goal for Jessie? It should be an easier task than the Ubuntu 12.04 goal, since that covers the default desktop, while for Debian it would just be the netinstall (without any task chosen). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caa77j2bz9ccgcs5+gezwk4vh0tqwau3id4h5dj6c4qhswa2...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Python 3 as default
Hi Barry, On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:25:16AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: I try to keep an eye on what other distros are doing w.r.t. Python 3. Here are Fedora's plans: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Py2to3GuidelineChanges Some of these things are not relevant to us (e.g. DNF vs. yum). Others are interesting from a Python-aficionado point of view (e.g. cloud-init and other upstreams). I'd like to start thinking about what it would mean for Python 3 to be the default Python in Debian. This is not what should /usr/bin/python point to - I think we're all largely in agreement that that shouldn't change, at least for the foreseeable future (re: PEP 394). Instead, I mean, what would it take for the basic Debian system to install Python 3 only by default, and have any system scripts that depend on Python be Python 3. Anyway, this is mostly just FYI for those who like to keep tabs on the competition. :) Maybe Python 3 as default would be a nice Jessie+1 release goal. Why should it be Jessie+1 instead of Jessie? The set of packages that need ported in order to switch the default is minimal, and AFAIK python3 ports are already available for all of them thanks to Ubuntu taking the lead here. In fact, the last time I checked there were only 2-3 packages that actually needed changed in order to swap python for python3 in the default install - lsb-release is one of them, and I don't remember offhand what the others were. In short, I see no reason why Debian would want to stick with python2 by default in Jessie. The barrier is much lower than in Ubuntu, because Debian makes much less use of python in the default install. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Python 3 as default
Instead, I mean, what would it take for the basic Debian system to install Python 3 only by default, and have any system scripts that depend on Python be Python 3. Nothing. I just did a default no-tasks selected debian wheezy system and no version of python was installed. Using a cowbuilder wheezy sid chroot I decided to see what python the tasks from tasksel install. (e.g. apt-get -s install task-web-server | grep python) Tasks: task-desktop (with --no-install-recommends): no Python task-gnome-desktop: (wheezy Python 2.7) (sid both Python 2.7 Python 3.3) task-kde-desktop: (wheezy no Python) (sid Python 2.7) task-lxde-desktop: Python 2.7 task-xfce-desktop: no Python. task-web-server: no Python task-print-server: no Python task-database-server: no Python task-dns-server: (wheezy no Python) (sid Python 2.7) task-file-server: Python 2.7 task-mail-server: no Python task-ssh-server: no Python task-laptop: no Python Looking at the lists of packages suggested by apt-get it seemed like only Gnome that wanted lots of python packages. Diane signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Recommending get-orig-source for packages ?
Barry Warsaw ba...@debian.org writes: On Dec 04, 2013, at 01:36 PM, Stuart Prescott wrote: Having uscan call debian/rules get-orig-source is quite difficult to do in a policy-compliant way (as already noted by Jakub) as the location for the munged tarball is different. Having uscan call a debian/repack from d/watch seems a little more sane only because there's no policy saying what d/repack must do; having uscan do the repacking itself with something like Files- Excluded from d/copyright is even nicer and devscripts in git can do this. If you have a good example of a d/repack recipe, please do add it to the LibraryStyleGuide wiki page. We already have URL:https://wiki.debian.org/onlyjob/get-orig-source, in particular URL:https://wiki.debian.org/onlyjob/get-orig-source#Repackaging_orig.tar. Are you expecting ‘debian/repack’ to be significantly different when repacking Python-language packages, as opposed to the general case of repacking an upstream source tarball? What differences would be great enough to warrant a Python-library-specific recipe? -- \ “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a | `\ thought without accepting it.” —Aristotle | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/7wiov3oiyp@benfinney.id.au
