Hello Neil,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 04:13:15PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Time to launch the debate on the Draft TDeb Specification - DEP-4.
Current HTML form: http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/tdeb/
...
Discuss.
just out of curiosity, is this still an active proposal, especially
since
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 21:09:55 +0200
Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de wrote:
Hello Neil,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 04:13:15PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Time to launch the debate on the Draft TDeb Specification - DEP-4.
Current HTML form: http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/tdeb/
...
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:13:19 -0400
Filipus Klutiero chea...@gmail.com wrote:
That would be a nice improvement, but let me suggest another
implementation. To avoid introducing a second diff, why not updating
the
regular diff (in the case of non-native packages) but
Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:45:46 -0400
Filipus Klutiero chea...@gmail.com wrote:
[...] http://www.emdebian.org/media/debian-media/
That would be a nice improvement, but let me suggest another
implementation. To avoid introducing a second diff, why not updating the
Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:06:35 -0400
Filipus Klutiero chea...@gmail.com wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
Primary Motivations (in order):
1. Updates to translations should not require source NMU's.
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:21:59 -0400
Filipus Klutiero chea...@gmail.com wrote:
That would be a nice improvement, but let me suggest another
implementation. To avoid introducing a second diff, why not updating the
regular diff (in the case of non-native packages) but indicating that
the
Neil Williams writes (Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.):
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:06:35 -0400
Filipus Klutiero chea...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the purpose of creating a new binary package format for this (as
opposed to reusing, say, the deb format)?
To support easier management
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:21:59 -0400
Filipus Klutiero chea...@gmail.com wrote:
That would be a nice improvement, but let me suggest another
implementation. To avoid introducing a second diff, why not updating the
regular diff (in the case of non-native packages) but indicating that
the
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:46:48 +0100
Ian Jackson i...@davenant.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Neil Williams writes (Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.):
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:06:35 -0400
Filipus Klutiero chea...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the purpose of creating a new binary package format
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:45:46 -0400
Filipus Klutiero chea...@gmail.com wrote:
Please note:
All of the implementation details can wait until after Squeeze - all
that is needed for this release cycle is that apt and dpkg can handle a
migration from Squeeze to Squeeze+1 where packages being upgraded
Neil Williams wrote:
Primary Motivations (in order):
1. Updates to translations should not require source NMU's.
I guess that means avoiding to NMU with new diff.gz -s? If so, what are
the underlying motivations?
What is the purpose of creating a new binary package format for this (as
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:06:35 -0400
Filipus Klutiero chea...@gmail.com wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
Primary Motivations (in order):
1. Updates to translations should not require source NMU's.
I guess that means avoiding to NMU with new diff.gz -s? If so, what are
the underlying
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:31:29AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Why should 3.0 be any more difficult than 1.0 or anything that follows?
(Not that I have any particular desire to use 3.0 or quilt myself.) 3.0
has to deal with incorporating patches and changes from the BTS, so
+t1.diff.gz is no
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:35:59 +0100
Jan Hauke Rahm i...@jhr-online.de wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:31:29AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Why should 3.0 be any more difficult than 1.0 or anything that follows?
(Not that I have any particular desire to use 3.0 or quilt myself.) 3.0
has to
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:26:30 -0500
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
Do you prevent mixing old and new .debs and .tdebs?
Changes to translations use +t1.diff.gz etc.
How do you merge data from a new package into the tdeb data?
Le Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:25:40AM +, Neil Williams a écrit :
Maintainers will be creating TDebs in Squeeze+1, using debian/rules,
using debhelper calls and uploading TDebs each time they would
currently upload any package that contains /usr/share/locale/LC_*/ etc.
Those TDebs are,
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:13:03 +0900
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Le Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:25:40AM +, Neil Williams a écrit :
Maintainers will be creating TDebs in Squeeze+1, using debian/rules,
using debhelper calls and uploading TDebs each time they would
currently
Current HTML form: http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/tdeb/
So do I understand correctly that there might be one .tdeb per package
and per language unless maintainers merge regularly the contents into
their source packages? How many .tdebs files does that imply in the
main archive?
It
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:22:19 +0100
Loïc Minier l...@dooz.org wrote:
Current HTML form: http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/tdeb/
So do I understand correctly that there might be one .tdeb per package
and per language unless maintainers merge regularly the contents into
their source
On Tue, Mar 17 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
Do you prevent mixing old and new .debs and .tdebs?
Changes to translations use +t1.diff.gz etc.
How do you merge data from a new package into the tdeb data?
The real question is how to get apt to understand getting the
+t1.diff.gz when asked
20 matches
Mail list logo
