Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2016-01-22 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Andreas Tille wrote: > > dh exists to optimise the common case, > > with some limited amount of extendability, but in some cases, dh5 style > > works better and/or ensures more legible debian/rules files than dh7 style. > > s?ensures more legible debian/rules?ensures less

Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2016-01-20 Thread Andreas Tille
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 08:34:44PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Andreas Tille , 2016-01-19, 20:04: > >Just for the record: I'm currently touching all those packages maintained > >by Debian Med and not uploaded for >3 years. Some last remainings of dh5 > >were removed and some

Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2016-01-19 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Andreas Tille , 2016-01-19, 20:04: Just for the record: I'm currently touching all those packages maintained by Debian Med and not uploaded for >3 years. Some last remainings of dh5 were removed and some other issues solved. I admit all of these "long time not uploaded"

Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2016-01-19 Thread Andreas Tille
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:54:12PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum debian.org> writes: > > > qa-helper_classic_debhelper.txt (3647 packages) > > > >The package is still using "classic" debhelper (no dh, no CDBS). > > Note that this is not a problem in the package, and there

Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2016-01-18 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Lucas Nussbaum debian.org> writes: > qa-helper_classic_debhelper.txt (3647 packages) > >The package is still using "classic" debhelper (no dh, no CDBS). Note that this is not a problem in the package, and there is absolutely no requirement to act on this. dh exists to optimise the common

Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2015-12-28 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 28/12/15 at 14:24 +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > *On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Following my blog post yesterday with updated graphs about Debian > > packaging evolution[1], I prepared lists of packages for each kind of > >

Tracking "below pedantic" stuff in lintian (Was: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style)

2015-12-28 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 28/12/15 at 14:24 +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > > qa-vcs_but_not_git_or_svn.txt (290 packages) > > > >The package is maintained using a VCS, which is not either Git or SVN. > > This one is really bellow pedantic... I agree. And this could also apply to "still using classic debhelper"

Re: Tracking "below pedantic" stuff in lintian (Was: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style)

2015-12-28 Thread Bastien ROUCARIES
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 28/12/15 at 14:24 +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: >> > qa-vcs_but_not_git_or_svn.txt (290 packages) >> > >> >The package is maintained using a VCS, which is not either Git or SVN. >> >> This one is really bellow

Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2015-12-28 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 28/12/15 at 13:23 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:20:21PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Excluding duplicates, a total of 5469 packages are listed. The dd-list for > > the > > merged list is available at > > https://people.debian.org/~lucas/qa-20151226/merged.ddlist

Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2015-12-28 Thread Santiago Vila
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:20:21PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Excluding duplicates, a total of 5469 packages are listed. The dd-list for the > merged list is available at > https://people.debian.org/~lucas/qa-20151226/merged.ddlist (which isn't very > useful, except to know if you are listed;

Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2015-12-28 Thread Bastien ROUCARIES
*On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, > > Following my blog post yesterday with updated graphs about Debian > packaging evolution[1], I prepared lists of packages for each kind of > "outdatedness". Of course not all practices highlighted below are >

Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2015-12-28 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Dec 28, Santiago Vila wrote: > Hmm... Are you suggesting that "hello-traditional" should be converted to dh? > > I have mixed feelings about putting in the same bag things which are > clearly bugs with things which are not necessarily bugs. Indeed. So far I have not seen

Re: Tracking "below pedantic" stuff in lintian (Was: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style)

2015-12-28 Thread Niels Thykier
Lucas Nussbaum: > On 28/12/15 at 14:24 +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: >>> qa-vcs_but_not_git_or_svn.txt (290 packages) >>> >>>The package is maintained using a VCS, which is not either Git or SVN. >> >> This one is really bellow pedantic... > > I agree. And this could also apply to "still

Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2015-12-26 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
Hi, Following my blog post yesterday with updated graphs about Debian packaging evolution[1], I prepared lists of packages for each kind of "outdatedness". Of course not all practices highlighted below are deprecated, and there are good reasons to continue to do some of them. But still, given

Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2015-12-26 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:20:21PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Following my blog post yesterday with updated graphs about Debian > packaging evolution[1], I prepared lists of packages for each kind of > "outdatedness". Of course not all practices highlighted below are > deprecated, and there

Re: Packages with /outdated/ packaging style

2015-12-26 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 26/12/15 at 12:54 +, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:20:21PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Following my blog post yesterday with updated graphs about Debian > > packaging evolution[1], I prepared lists of packages for each kind of > > "outdatedness". Of course not all