On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 07:20:23AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Russ,
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 09:50:39AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Andreas Tille ti...@debian.org writes:
I'm deeply impressed by the stuff you guys are dealing with at Christmas
Eve. ;-) While my family is not as
Hi Csillag,
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 09:36:35AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
Sorry, I don't get it? Any new bug number or am I missing an old problem?
Hi Andreas,
It is bugnumber #733111
I started working on a patch last night, but did not finished it yet.
(I will be AFK today and back
Csillag Tamas csta...@digitus.itk.ppke.hu writes:
I started working on a patch last night, but did not finished it yet.
(I will be AFK today and back in the afternoon.)
A question however: 'field Files-Excluded containing a space separated
list of globs' this is from your original spec in
Andreas Tille ti...@debian.org writes:
I'm deeply impressed by the stuff you guys are dealing with at Christmas
Eve. ;-) While my family is not as tolerant to let me put those topics
on the table I'd be really happy if some of you could send a bug report
with the patch to BTS.
Done. (Well,
Hi Russ,
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 09:50:39AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Andreas Tille ti...@debian.org writes:
I'm deeply impressed by the stuff you guys are dealing with at Christmas
Eve. ;-) While my family is not as tolerant to let me put those topics
on the table I'd be really happy
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 03:21:38AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:33:44 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
I talked with Gregor and created a blogpost which is (i think) good
summary.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:28:13 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
Sound great! I'm not entirely convineced that we should keep the exclude
list in the copyright file but that's an implementation detail on the
uscan end. I'll leave the bug open until we have a fixed devscripts in
unstable.
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:23:57PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:28:13 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
This uscan feature is now in devscripts since 2.13.5 (or .6, .7, .8,
if we look at the fixes ...); I guess this bug can be closed.
Thanks for letting me
Csillag Tamas csta...@digitus.itk.ppke.hu writes:
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 02:06:53AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
which version do you use?
I started looking into this and found:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=732006
'uscan: broken handling of filenames with whitespace
gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org writes:
Sounds as if we need something like a zero-width negative
look-behind assertion (I had to copy this from perlre :)).
foreach (grep { $_ } split /(?!\\)\s+/, $data-{files-excluded}) {
s?\\??g; # to keep the style of what's in uscan ...
say $_;
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:30:32 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
However:
foreach (grep { $_ } split /\s+/, $data-{files-excluded}) {
Is someone here better with regexes than me? ;-)
We need to replace /\s+/ with one that does not split if the space is
escaped
with a backslash.
my
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 02:06:53AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 11:34:00PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
...
That's correct. However, I just detected a bug which happens in case
there are some files to remove that contain blanks (as it happens in
plastimatch where
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:44:51 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
foreach (grep { $_ } split /(?!\\)\s+/, $data-{files-excluded}) {
s?\\??g; # to keep the style of what's in uscan ...
say $_;
}
The trouble with this approach is that
On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 03:13:56 +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
That's correct. However, I just detected a bug which happens in case
there are some files to remove that contain blanks (as it happens in
plastimatch where the file
doc/Analytic Regularization-2010-06-24.pdf
is not
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 11:34:00PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
...
That's correct. However, I just detected a bug which happens in case
there are some files to remove that contain blanks (as it happens in
plastimatch where the file
doc/Analytic Regularization-2010-06-24.pdf
is not
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 03:53:58AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:44:51 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
foreach (grep { $_ } split /(?!\\)\s+/, $data-{files-excluded}) {
s?\\??g; # to keep the style of what's in uscan ...
say $_;
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:33:44 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
I talked with Gregor and created a blogpost which is (i think) good summary.
http://cstamas.hu/blog/posts/Standard_mechanism_for_repacking_upstream_tarballs_in_debian/
TL;DR: Here is proposal for modifying uscan
Hi Guido,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:48:57PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:41:40 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:38:21AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
If you agree that it should be done this way (as you can read in the
paragraph
above) I
Hi cstamas,
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 06:46:57PM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
Hi Guido,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:48:57PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:41:40 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:38:21AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
If you agree
hi,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:30:27PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:17:15 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
...
The problem is still that the name of the new tarball is only
reported as a message by uscan which is not parsed by
/usr/share/pyshared/gbp/deb/uscan.py if I'm
hi,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:30:27PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
...
So it seems that g-i-o still happily imports the original tarball and
not the repackaged one.
The problem is still that the name of the new tarball is only
reported as a message by uscan which is not parsed by
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:03:07 +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:30:27PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:17:15 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
...
The problem is still that the name of the new tarball is only
reported as a message by uscan which is not
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:26:02AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:03:07 +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:30:27PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:17:15 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
...
The problem is still that the name of
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:31:41AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:26:02AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:03:07 +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:30:27PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:17:15 +0100,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:45:05AM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:31:41AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:26:02AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:03:07 +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:30:27PM
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:38:21AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:45:05AM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:31:41AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:26:02AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:03:07
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:41:40 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:38:21AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
If you agree that it should be done this way (as you can read in the
paragraph
above) I am happy to work on uscan then the patch for git-buildpackage can
be
better.
Hi cstamas,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:05:31AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
Hi,
I think I have a patch. :)
it is against git-buildpackage 0.6.0~git20120601
--- /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/gbp/deb/__init__.py-backup 2012-12-12
Hi Guido,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:17:15PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
Hi cstamas,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:05:31AM +0100, Csillag Tamas wrote:
Hi,
I think I have a patch. :)
it is against git-buildpackage 0.6.0~git20120601
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:17:15 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
I think I have a patch. :)
it is against git-buildpackage 0.6.0~git20120601
Thanks for your patch. Is this still an issue with current git? We're
parsing the upstream tarballs name hopefully correctly now. Could you
check and if not
Hi,
I think I have a patch. :)
it is against git-buildpackage 0.6.0~git20120601
--- /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/gbp/deb/__init__.py-backup 2012-12-12
00:39:50.722558020 +0100
+++ /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/gbp/deb/__init__.py
31 matches
Mail list logo
