On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:18:38AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't think this is horribly relevant to what we're discussing, namely
how to go about packaging software for inclusion in Debian. Generating
upstream-provided packages that don't meet Debian Policy and therefore
won't be
On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 04:32:39PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
In general, you seem to rant about a lot of things that may make sense
on their own, but they do not seem to have _anything_ to do with a
package being Debian-native or not. More specifically, you try to imply
that a package being
On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 04:32:39PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 14:23 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:17:16PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
I'd just add:
* it isn't in the spirit of free software to make it hard for others to
use the code -
* Russ Allbery [Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:35:53 -0800]:
I also considered making several of the packages that I maintain native,
since I keep the debian directory in the upstream VCS, but decided against
it becaues of this, and also because Debian also often needs new releases
that are meaningless
On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 03:16:36PM +0100, Vincent Danjean wrote:
I can tell you that this is not a easy way to cleanly package these
softwares. I did not talk to upstream yet because I would like to present
them new clean packages. Nevertheless, for now, I need to recreate a
Gabor Gombas wrote:
You seem to make the mistake to think that the debian/ directory
provided by upstream is there to help the distro maintainer.
[false assumptions]
I remove the upstream debian/ directory because the program that
create the diff.gz (dpkg-deb ?) does not record *removal* of
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Russ Allbery [Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:35:53 -0800]:
I also considered making several of the packages that I maintain
native, since I keep the debian directory in the upstream VCS, but
decided against it becaues of this, and also because Debian also often
Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 05:04:17PM +0100, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Gabor Gombas wrote:
You seem to make the mistake to think that the debian/ directory
provided by upstream is there to help the distro maintainer.
[false assumptions]
Huh? I, as a user, routinely use
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 05:04:17PM +0100, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Gabor Gombas wrote:
You seem to make the mistake to think that the debian/ directory
provided by upstream is there to help the distro maintainer.
[false assumptions]
Huh? I, as a user, routinely use upstream-provided debian/
Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Huh? I, as a user, routinely use upstream-provided debian/ directory to
create packages for some software (most frequently mplayer). So those
are not assumptions but facts.
And as a user, I can say that if e.g. the debian mplayer maintainer
considers
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:17:16PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Luk Claes wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
i.e. native should be a last resort - used only when it is all but
impossible for the package to be used outside Debian or some distro
fundamentally based on Debian like Ubuntu.
I
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:35:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
tags 457353 + wontfix
thanks
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:20:57PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
You're missing a .diff.gz, which means that this is a native package. This
package is in no way specific to Debian, which
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:17:16PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Luk Claes wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
i.e. native should be a last resort - used only when it is all but
impossible for the package to be used outside Debian or some distro
fundamentally based on Debian
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Anyone who wants to package your source for something else than Debian
is then free to completely and utterly ignore your debian/ directory...
I'm trying to package two softwares where upstream
1) puts its debian/ directory in their releases (X.Y.Z)
2) provides
On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 03:16:36PM +0100, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Anyone who wants to package your source for something else than Debian
is then free to completely and utterly ignore your debian/ directory...
I'm trying to package two softwares where upstream
1)
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:23:32 +0100, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Oh, I agree. I was only talking about a situation in which the Debian
maintainer of a given package is the very same person as the upstream
developer.
Even in this case, I think one should consider making it
On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 14:23 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:17:16PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
I'd just add:
* it isn't in the spirit of free software to make it hard for others to
use the code - making a package Debian-native when it could work on any
GNU/Linux
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:23:32 +0100, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Oh, I agree. I was only talking about a situation in which the Debian
maintainer of a given package is the very same person as the upstream
developer.
Even in this
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 08:16:07PM +0100, Leo costela Antunes wrote:
Sorry, but I disagree with this interpretation. For me a Debian native
package is a package which contains the official debian packaging stuff
in the upstream tarball. Since I'm also upstream for gdome2-xslt and the
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 09:06:07PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
[N.B. I am subscribed to -devel; please do not CC me if you are following
up there. ]
[ As you wish, but notice that I didn't have the chance of knowing that
upon my first Cc. I Cc-ed you as bug submitter. Dropping the Cc now.
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 08:01:02PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
I thought this consensus was already a fact and that some maintainers
just disagree and nobody forced them to change yet...
Well, before forcing them to change we need a place where it is written
that the practice is front, don't we?
On Sun Dec 23 15:26, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:35:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Sorry, but I disagree with this interpretation. For me a Debian native
package is a package which contains the official debian packaging stuff
in the upstream tarball. Since
tags 457353 + wontfix
thanks
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:20:57PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
You're missing a .diff.gz, which means that this is a native package. This
package is in no way specific to Debian, which means that this shouldn't be
a Debian-native package.
Sorry, but I
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
tags 457353 + wontfix
thanks
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:20:57PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
You're missing a .diff.gz, which means that this is a native package. This
package is in no way specific to Debian, which means that this shouldn't be
a Debian-native
Neil Williams wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
tags 457353 + wontfix
thanks
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:20:57PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
You're missing a .diff.gz, which means that this is a native package. This
package is in no way specific to Debian, which means that this shouldn't
Luk Claes wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Sorry, but I disagree with this interpretation. For me a Debian native
package is a package which contains the official debian packaging stuff
in the upstream tarball. Since I'm also upstream for gdome2-xslt and the
software has been used
Luk Claes wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
i.e. native should be a last resort - used only when it is all but
impossible for the package to be used outside Debian or some distro
fundamentally based on Debian like Ubuntu.
I thought this consensus was already a fact and that some maintainers
just
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:35:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Sorry, but I disagree with this interpretation. For me a Debian native
package is a package which contains the official debian packaging stuff
in the upstream tarball. Since I'm also upstream for gdome2-xslt and the
software
Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:35:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Sorry, but I disagree with this interpretation. For me a Debian native
package is a package which contains the official debian packaging stuff
in the upstream tarball. Since I'm also upstream for
[N.B. I am subscribed to -devel; please do not CC me if you are
following up there. ]
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:35:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
There are other examples of packages in the archive which are no way
Debian specific, but which are native as gdome2-xslt is; a fresh
brian m. carlson wrote:
It is my impression that this is the case already, but Policy is silent
on the issue; I checked before I filed the bug. Perhaps if a consensus
can be reached a guideline should be placed in Policy so that people are
not further confused.
Please see [0], on this same
31 matches
Mail list logo