On 08/04/2010 14:33, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi Michael,
Michael Biebl wrote:
Hm, making git-core a dummy/transitional package, which pulls the git
package
on upgrades sounds like a better idea to me.
Otherwise git won't be updated when going from lenny to squeeze.
Gerrit Pape
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 23:10:31 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Now that there is a package available to test with, I would like to
file bugs for the affected packages suggesting this change. I suggest
an RC severity since it would be nice to have the name change in
squeeze. I am therefore
Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 23:10:31 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Now that there is a package available to test with, I would like to
file bugs for the affected packages suggesting this change. I suggest
an RC severity since it would be nice to have the name change in
Hi Michael,
Michael Biebl wrote:
Hm, making git-core a dummy/transitional package, which pulls the git
package
on upgrades sounds like a better idea to me.
Otherwise git won't be updated when going from lenny to squeeze.
Gerrit Pape implemented what I think is a nicer method: git-core is a
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
A list of affected packages follows.
You forgot to include packages that Suggest git-core in the list.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Joey Hess wrote:
You forgot to include packages that Suggest git-core in the list.
The only package with a versioned Suggest of git-core I found was
moap, which I did include. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if I missed
something for some other reason.
For what it’s worth, the list of affected
Hello,
Gerrit Pape wrote:
I'm about to provide a new git binary package from the git-core (the
distributed revision control system) source, so that 'apt-get install
git' installs the git content tracker in squeeze.
A new version 1.7.0.4-2~exp0 of git has been uploaded to experimental,
with
Well, except _not_ to abet the hostile takeover of a
project name that has been around since ... I don't know,
but the Debian package goes back to 1997.
[Jon Dowland]
In what way is it hostile?
It is hostile in the sense that nobody in Linus-git went to GNU-git
to ask permission before
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:30:11PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
I believe the upstream was last modified in 1997. So that's
12 years of seniority, but it's also 12 years in which
the upstream source was essentially unmaintained. If we
really did decide that our priority was packages, rather
than
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:23:52AM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
gnuit already Conflicts and Replaces git ( 4.9.2-1). It also Provides
git. This Provides should, I believe, be removed for either squeeze or
squeeze+1.
My recent upload of gnuit (4.9.5-2, which just hit testing),
removes the
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:06:02PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Note that adding a release (squeeze) without a git package will not
solve the problem: the git/lenny package will not be removed from
the system without an explicit action of the administrator.
And the administrator can already
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Peter Samuelson
wrote:
Well, except _not_ to abet the hostile takeover of a
project name that has been around since ... I don't know,
but the Debian package goes back to 1997.
In what way is it hostile? Do you really believe that
leaving things the way
Hi,
thanks to Ian Beckwith, the GNU Interactive Tools package 'git' has been
renamed to 'gnuit' in lenny. In lenny 'git' is a transitional package
that depends on gnuit, in squeeze and sid there's no 'git' package
anymore.
I'm about to provide a new git binary package from the git-core (the
Gerrit Pape p...@smarden.org (17/09/2009):
I'm about to provide a new git binary package from the git-core (the
distributed revision control system) source, so that 'apt-get
install git' installs the git content tracker in squeeze.
Nice. :)
For people upgrading from lenny with git (from
* Gerrit Pape p...@smarden.org [090917 05:18]:
Hi,
thanks to Ian Beckwith, the GNU Interactive Tools package 'git' has been
renamed to 'gnuit' in lenny. In lenny 'git' is a transitional package
that depends on gnuit, in squeeze and sid there's no 'git' package
anymore.
I'm about to
2009/9/17 Marvin Renich m...@renich.org:
* Gerrit Pape p...@smarden.org [090917 05:18]:
Hi,
thanks to Ian Beckwith, the GNU Interactive Tools package 'git' has been
renamed to 'gnuit' in lenny.
:-)
I'm about to provide a new git binary package from the git-core (the
distributed revision
Leandro Doctors wrote:
2009/9/17 Marvin Renich m...@renich.org:
But, if I were a gnuit user and not a git-core user, I would find it
annoying (and possibly confusing) when upgrading from lenny to squeeze
to have a new package added that I didn't want and that is completely
unrelated to
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:06:02PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
I cannot see a good solution here.
Well, the obvious solution is to include it in the Release Notes.
Best Regards,
Patrick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
* Leandro Doctors ldoct...@gmail.com [090917 10:41]:
2009/9/17 Marvin Renich m...@renich.org:
But, if I were a gnuit user and not a git-core user, I would find it
annoying (and possibly confusing) when upgrading from lenny to squeeze
to have a new package added that I didn't want and that
* Vincent Danjean vdanjean...@free.fr [090917 11:05]:
There is no way APT (or dpkg) knows that git/lenny should be remove
instead of being 'upgraded' in git/squeeze.
Note that adding a release (squeeze) without a git package will not
solve the problem: the git/lenny package will not be
* Marvin Renich m...@renich.org [090917 11:40]:
I do not know how aptitude deals with the automatic/manual flag in this
case, though. Suppose a user has etch installed with git 4.3.20-10
(marked as manual in aptitude). The upgrade to lenny will bring in
gnuit 4.9.4-1; I think aptitude will
[Vincent Danjean]
I cannot see a good solution here.
Well, except _not_ to abet the hostile takeover of a project name that
has been around since ... I don't know, but the Debian package goes
back to 1997.
I know git is the awesomest thing since tla, but I'm disappointed that
8 or 9 years of
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:10:45PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:06:02PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
I cannot see a good solution here.
Well, the obvious solution is to include it in the Release Notes.
That would just spam and mud down the Notes.
The worst
23 matches
Mail list logo
