On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 04:51:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 09:28:30AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:15:00AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > How should we handle architecture-specific patches properly inside
> > > Debian?
> >
> > Why
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
I'm maintaining two packages which have Ubuntu-specific patches, which have
been imported by Ubuntu maintainers giving a hand here in order to reduce the
diff with Ubuntu and maintain the packages in the same place.
I don't have strong
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 09:28:30AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:15:00AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > How should we handle architecture-specific patches properly inside
> > Debian?
>
> Why should there ever be architecture-specific patches?
>
> I get that there
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:15:00AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> How should we handle architecture-specific patches properly inside
> Debian?
Why should there ever be architecture-specific patches?
I get that there sometimes need to be vendor-specific patches, because
defaults may differ between
Adrian Bunk writes:
...
>> "The source" is what you get after steps 1 and 2.
>
> Why is "The source" what you get after dpkg applied patches,
> but before debian/rules applied patches?
I agree with Sean's point about it being a matter of definition relating
to when we invoke debian/rules, but
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 12:11:01PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>...
> On Sun 19 Aug 2018 at 09:51PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > For a user it doesn't make a difference which tool applies the patches.
>
> In my mind, it does; it matters whether or not it is part of the package
> build.
Hello Adrian,
On Sun 19 Aug 2018 at 09:51PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Why is "The source" what you get after dpkg applied patches,
> but before debian/rules applied patches?
Because we define the package build as something that starts when you
invoke the debian/rules script.
> For a user it
Hello,
On Fri 17 Aug 2018 at 07:36PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The main misconception is that there would always be *the* source.
>
> Steps you might have before the compilation starts:
> 1. dpkg unpacks upstream sources
> 2. dpkg applies patches
> 3. debian/rules unpacks upstream tarballs as
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 07:33:02PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series
> would be a bad idea"):
> > The main misconception is that there would always be *the* source.
> >
> > Steps you might
Adrian Bunk writes ("Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series
would be a bad idea"):
> The main misconception is that there would always be *the* source.
>
> Steps you might have before the compilation starts:
> 1. dpkg unpacks upstream sources
> 2. dpkg ap
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 08:58:49AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri 17 Aug 2018 at 12:01AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:22:17AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> For example, someone might want to use a Debian system to investigate a
> >> bug on an
Hello,
On Fri 17 Aug 2018 at 12:32PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In general, I think package builds should not pay any attention to
> dpkg-vendor. Can I please add that request to the TC's deliberations ?
This is about package builds, not the unpacking of source packages, so
is surely a
Hello,
On Fri 17 Aug 2018 at 12:01AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 09:22:17AM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> For example, someone might want to use a Debian system to investigate a
>> bug on an Ubuntu system. They might begin by downloading some source
>> packages from the
Iain Lane writes ("Bug#904302: Why outlawing vendor-specific patch series would
be a bad idea"):
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:49:00AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > > One obvious solution if vendor-specific series files get outlawed in
> > > Debian would
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:49:00AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > One obvious solution if vendor-specific series files get outlawed in
> > Debian would be to switch from ubuntu.series to manual patching in
> > debian/rules based on dpkg-vendor(1).
>
> Or it would mean that Ubuntu would carry
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 09:49:00AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Adrian Bunk
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > looking at something where I worked on the upstream implementation ages ago:
> > https://sources.debian.org/src/liferea/1.12.4-1/debian/patches/ubuntu-example-feeds.patch/
> >
> > It is a common
]] Adrian Bunk
> Hi,
>
> looking at something where I worked on the upstream implementation ages ago:
> https://sources.debian.org/src/liferea/1.12.4-1/debian/patches/ubuntu-example-feeds.patch/
>
> It is a common problem that users should be able to get started quickly
> after installing a
Hi,
looking at something where I worked on the upstream implementation ages ago:
https://sources.debian.org/src/liferea/1.12.4-1/debian/patches/ubuntu-example-feeds.patch/
It is a common problem that users should be able to get started quickly
after installing a program.
When liferea is
18 matches
Mail list logo
