Hello Raphael,
On Tue 02 Nov 2021 at 08:31AM +01, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2021, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Of course we should be exploring the new avenues that you mention. But
>> becoming more willing to break unstable/testing than we are at present
>> might also be good for our
On Mon, 01 Nov 2021, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Of course we should be exploring the new avenues that you mention. But
> becoming more willing to break unstable/testing than we are at present
> might also be good for our project.
Maybe, maybe not. What are you basing your assertion on?
From my
Hello,
On Fri 29 Oct 2021 at 09:57AM +02, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I have sympathy with your reasoning and I can certainly relate to things
> that we did 20 years ago, where we happily broke unstable after a release
> but we have changed.
>
> Yes, on some aspects we have become more
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021, Clint Adams wrote:
> > In any case, a message saying that which is deprecated when in fact
> > `which` will stay around (but maintained in another packages) is not
> > helpful.
>
> Tell me, what would be helpful?
A coordinated take over of the binary with a proper transition
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 09:53:55PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> “It only exists if it’s in Debian.”
>
> SCNR. But this is relevant, here.
>
> [ overly harsh words deleted ]
That's right, so we print a deprecation warning at the beginning
of the development cycle to raise awareness of the
On Tue, 26 Oct 2021, Clint Adams wrote:
> effort maintaining a utility which is superfluous given the
> existence of alternatives which are preferred by people who care
“It only exists if it’s in Debian.”
SCNR. But this is relevant, here.
[ overly harsh words deleted ]
bye,
//mirabilos
--
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 12:46:43PM +0200, tito wrote:
> It is possible to create a single command package if somebody
> will maintain it ( e.g busybox-which) like it was done for busybox-syslogd.
> tempfile is missing tough.
If someone wants to do that, I suppose they can.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021
On 2021-10-24 19:08 +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 02:33:44PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> > I think causing build failures is enough reason to say this. I don't
> > suppose that mine is the only one. Yes those builds are buggy and
> > should not do this, and we should make efforts
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 19:08:20 +
Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 05:56:17PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > No. You’re conflating “which ”, which indeed is mostly redundant
> > with “command -v”, with “which -a ”, which is NOT otherwise
> > available, and a very useful thing to
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 05:56:17PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> No. You’re conflating “which ”, which indeed is mostly redundant
> with “command -v”, with “which -a ”, which is NOT otherwise
> available, and a very useful thing to have, and one which (heh, pun
> not intended) I pretty much
Hello,
On Sat 16 Oct 2021 at 05:50AM GMT, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 01:05:50PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>>The debianutils package must continue to provide the tempfile(1)
>>program until a compatible utility is available in a package that is
>>at least
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 1:45 AM Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
>
> the lintian tag
> possibly-insecure-handling-of-tmp-files-in-maintainer-script still
> recommend "tempfile or mktemp".
Lintian's last remaining reference to 'tempfile' was dropped. [1] The
updated tag description is now live on
> "CA" == Clint Adams writes:
CA> However, I don't think that this is reasonable for tempfile(1) unless
CA> someone is actually willing to package and maintain a tempfile(1).
just saw this..
i got hit by the removal of tepfile(1); pv-grub-menu uses it in its
postint script and its removal
On Sat, 16 Oct 2021, Clint Adams wrote:
> It is my hope that update-shells will obsolete add-shell and remove-shell
Huh, what’s update-shells?
Hm, apparently something new in sid. Ouch. If you really wish for
that, it’ll involve painful versioned Pre-Depends and a largish
diff for backports :/
Hi Simon
On 2021-10-11 01:01:45 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The release team has so far protected users of testing from the
> > problem by blocking testing migration, but this is not a long-term
> > solution.
>
> Adrian asked in
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The release team has so far protected users of testing from the
> problem by blocking testing migration, but this is not a long-term
> solution.
Adrian asked in #994275 for changes in several topics to be reverted:
- which(1)
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> More specifically, I am asking the Technical Committee to decide that:
I think this is really 5 separate (but related) requests, each of which
we could either uphold or decline, separately. Do you agree?
> 1. The "which" program must be
Simon McVittie writes:
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 at 22:09:31 +, Clint Adams wrote:
>> The fact that 95% of my inbox consists of hatemail about the
>> interactive usage of `which` suggests a failure at the latter.
> I'm sorry you're receiving hatemail about this package, and that's not
> OK, but
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 10:37:25AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 at 22:09:31 +, Clint Adams wrote:
> > The package description uses the phrases "specific to Debian" and
> > "installation scripts of Debian packages". The fact that
> > debianutils is used on non-deb
On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 at 22:09:31 +, Clint Adams wrote:
> The package description uses the phrases "specific to Debian" and
> "installation scripts of Debian packages". The fact that
> debianutils is used on non-deb operating systems suggests a failure
> at the former.
Given its package
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 11:31:41AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> This seems a good opportunity to ask what I think is a key question here:
> what do you consider debianutils' mission to be?
The package description uses the phrases "specific to Debian" and
"installation scripts of Debian
On 2021-09-15 01:36 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> This is a request to override the maintainer of debianutils on several
> changes that were done to the package in unstable after the release of
> bullseye.
...
> 2. The "which" program must not print any deprecation warnings.
>
> The deprecation
On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 at 02:22:44 +, Clint Adams wrote:
> * debianutils gets closer to achieving its mission, by having
>one fewer irrelevant utility that does not belong
This seems a good opportunity to ask what I think is a key question here:
what do you consider debianutils' mission to
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 03:00:59PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I thought what you wanted was to drop cjwatson-which, either in favour
> of no which in Debian at all, or the option to install GNU or BSD which.
>
> However, you have now suggested that someone could package
> cjwatson-which in
Hello Clint,
On Fri 24 Sep 2021 at 12:52PM GMT, Clint Adams wrote:
> What I want is for GNU which to stop languishing in NEW, for the dozen
> people who keep complaining that FreeBSD which is better and some other
> volunteer should package FreeBSD which to actually spend the 15 minutes
> to do
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:26:19AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Talking about "which", it might be good to get an explanation from the
> maintainer what he wants, and why, and then discuss based on that.
What I want is for GNU which to stop languishing in NEW, for the dozen
people who keep
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 10:44:06AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 09:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > In my opinion, an amicable middle-ground proposal would be that the
> > debianutils maintainer completely removes "which" from debianutils,
> > and assuming the sysvinit-utils
On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 09:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> In my opinion, an amicable middle-ground proposal would be that the
> debianutils maintainer completely removes "which" from debianutils,
> and assuming the sysvinit-utils maintainers agree, that they adopt
> both the existing "which" and
On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> and assuming the sysvinit-utils maintainers agree, that they adopt
> both the existing "which" and (at least temporarily) "tempfile".
Independent of which “which” is to be adopted, I ask for this “which”
to be one that *does* support “which -a”, which is
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 03:02:57PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Adrian,
>
> On Wed 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36AM +03, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > Package: tech-ctte
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > This is a request to override the maintainer of debianutils on several
> > changes that were done to the
Hello,
On Thu 16 Sep 2021 at 03:02PM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:
> The TC can't do detailed design work, so without such a proposal on the
> table, we're left deciding between a complete reversion and doing
> nothing at all. It would be good to have more options.
This isn't quite right -- we
Hello Adrian,
On Wed 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36AM +03, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Package: tech-ctte
> Severity: normal
>
> This is a request to override the maintainer of debianutils on several
> changes that were done to the package in unstable after the release of
> bullseye.
>
>
> More specifically, I
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:41:31PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Are you arguing for a transition that makes "which" non-essential,
> or are you arguing for a transition that would remove "which" from
> Debian?
Irrespective of the technical arguments for keeping or removing which, I
think that
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 at 01:36:26 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 5. Programs in debianutils must not be moved to /usr unless there is
>project-wide consensus on packages doing such a move, and premature
>moving must be reverted.
This part touches on an issue we are looking at in parallel to
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 09:20:34AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 01:36:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > 1. The "which" program must be provided by an essential package.
>
> This request seems overzealous to me. Banning the shrinking of essential
> would set a bad
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 01:36:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This is a request to override the maintainer of debianutils on several
> changes that were done to the package in unstable after the release of
> bullseye.
As someone being involved with debianutils lately (via DPKG_ROOT), I
feel the
36 matches
Mail list logo
