[This is the policy bug.]
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:18 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> the relevant sentence of Policy ... was intended to be
> informative, not normative.
Just a brief post scriptum: I had to disable a test in Lintian due to
new restrictions on version strings in Dpkg. The
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:18 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> the relevant sentence of Policy ... was intended to be
> informative, not normative.
Just a brief post scriptum: I had to disable a test in Lintian due to
new restrictions on version strings in Dpkg. The commit message has
more
control: tag -1 +pending
Hello Ian,
On Tue 16 Jun 2020 at 12:11PM +01, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think "native package versions" refers to "versionn numbers which
> are supposed to be Debian-native", not "the version numbers of
> native-format packages".
>
> Can I suggest that this sentence might
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#953554: Please permit Debian revisions with 1.0
native packages [and 1 more messages]"):
> I believe that the relevant sentence of Policy, added in policy.git
> commit eee39aecef3a6a5f9927211b5c847e645e927cbd, was intended to be
> informative, not
Felix Lechner writes ("Re: Bug#953554: Please permit Debian revisions with 1.0
native packages [and 1 more messages]"):
> Hi Sean,
...
> Based on your note, however, Lintian will stop warning about such
> version mismatches. Perhaps it will gradually pave the way for a
&g
Hi Sean,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:18 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> As
> discussion is ongoing in the context of Lintian, that seems premature,
> however.
The Lintian discussion was merged into a bug Guillem had filed to
further enshrine the division between native and non-native packages
Hello,
On Wed 11 Mar 2020 at 12:30PM GMT, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Felix Lechner writes ("Re: Bug#953554: Please permit Debian revisions with
> 1.0 native packages [and 1 more messages]"):
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:58 AM Ian Jackson
>> wrote:
>> >
&
Hi Guillem,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:14 PM Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> Given the timing of this reaction, I think it would not be
> unreasonable to consider it originating out of spite?
Actually, I did not think of you. I hoped to show Ian that I am not
"part of a campaign to abolish one of
Felix Lechner writes ("Re: Bug#953554: Please permit Debian revisions with 1.0
native packages"):
> For now, I will reduce the tag's severity to a warning
> like you asked.
Thank you. I think for 1.0 packages that warning should remain,
because the lack of explicitness means
On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 18:32:04 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:37 AM Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> > I hope that whatever occurs more widely, this particular message can
> > be downgraded appropriately so that by default it is an warning rather
> > than an error. That's all I'm
Control: retitle -1 lintian: Restore format-specific changelog tags as warnings
Control: forcemerge -1 944155
Hi Ian,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:37 AM Ian Jackson
wrote:
>
> I hope that whatever occurs more widely, this particular message can
> be downgraded appropriately so that by default it
Mattia Rizzolo writes ("Re: Bug#953554: Please permit Debian revisions with 1.0
native packages"):
> I'm with this.
> doing 1.0+1, 1.0+2, etc would trigger my versioning OCD much less than
> 1.0-1, 1.0-2 for native packages.
> Ian: how does this proposal sound to you?
Bad
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:19:39PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > E: chiark-tcl-applet source: malformed-debian-changelog-version 1.0-1~
> > (for native)
> >
> > For the reasons above I disagree with calling this an error.
> > Previously it was a warning. (Full disclosure: I know the dpkg
> >
Hi Ian,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:37 AM Ian Jackson
wrote:
>
> I hope that whatever occurs more widely, this particular message can
> be downgraded appropriately so that by default it is an warning rather
> than an error. That's all I'm asking for in this bug.
Unless someone objects, I will
Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Bug#953554: Please permit Debian revisions with 1.0
native packages [and 1 more messages]"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I have no problem with this being a lintian warning. In this bug I am
> > requesting this "error" to be returned to i
Control: clone -1 -2
Control: reassign -2 debian-policy
Felix Lechner writes ("Re: Bug#953554: Please permit Debian revisions with 1.0
native packages [and 1 more messages]"):
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:58 AM Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> >
> > It works today. The only pr
Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have no problem with this being a lintian warning. In this bug I am
> requesting this "error" to be returned to its previous status as a
> warning.
It was not previously clear to me that this was the case.
> I have indeed used an override. But I am worried. I perceive
Hi Ian,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:58 AM Ian Jackson
wrote:
>
> It works today. The only problem is the lintian warning.
Doesn't policy stand in the way too?
> I perceive this as
> part of a campaign to abolish one of my workflows. I am scared that
> in the future an attempt may be made to
Felix Lechner writes ("Re: Bug#953554: Please permit Debian revisions with 1.0
native packages"):
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 7:51 AM Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> > I am packaging a small program for which I am the upstream. It does
> > not make sense to use a complicat
Hi Ian,
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 7:51 AM Ian Jackson
wrote:
>
> I am packaging a small program for which I am the upstream. It does
> not make sense to use a complicated source format; 1.0 native is
> perfect.
I too would like to see versions decoupled from the native/non-native
question, but I
Hi!
[ I was pointed out to this bug, so chiming in. :) ]
On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 14:47:12 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.55.0
> I am packaging a small program for which I am the upstream. It does
> not make sense to use a complicated source format; 1.0 native is
>
Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> In my opinion your statements here doesn't make any sense: using a
> Debian revision when you are not relying on a single upstream tarball
> (i.e., non-native) really is going against the implied meaning of a
> Debian revision: something that is not supposed to change
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, 3:51 pm Ian Jackson,
wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.55.0
>
> I am packaging a small program for which I am the upstream. It does
> not make sense to use a complicated source format; 1.0 native is
> perfect.
>
There is no such thing about "1.0 native". I'm sure you
Package: lintian
Version: 2.55.0
I am packaging a small program for which I am the upstream. It does
not make sense to use a complicated source format; 1.0 native is
perfect.
Even though I am both upstream and Debian maintainer, this is not a
Debian-specific package and it might have both (i)
24 matches
Mail list logo
