On Wednesday, May 01, 2013 09:28:10 PM Daniel Pocock wrote:
Would there be any hard objection to a source package format based on
git-bundle?
Hi Daniel,
while I'm a big fan of Git, I don't see that much gain in a git based source
package format. I also assume that it would be a lot of work
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:11:23PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
The fact is that Debian does not make much effort to ensure that we do not
distribute unredistributable files in our mirrors and installation media,
once
a package has
On 04-05-13 05:04, Charles Plessy wrote:
In any case, please refrain passive-aggressive statements on other people's
projects.
Except that this time the project we're talking about was one person
asking another person can you clarify what I meant?, which seems to
make no sense, at all. If you
On 04/05/13 08:17, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On 04-05-13 05:04, Charles Plessy wrote:
In any case, please refrain passive-aggressive statements on other people's
projects.
Except that this time the project we're talking about was one person
asking another person can you clarify what I
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:04:09PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
One thing not clear is whether people thought I was referring to using
upstream repositories or alioth repositories (only containing commits
from the maintainer) as the content of such source packages. Bernhard,
could you
Some threads/links that I followed:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/04/msg00183.html
http://danielpocock.com/autotools-project-distribution-and-packaging-on-debian
http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/upstream_git_repositories/
* Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au [130501 21:28]:
Would there be any hard objection to a source package format based on
git-bundle?
I think a git based source package has quite some problems.
- failing to properly make changes visible
While you can express every history-graph in git
) as the content of such source packages. Bernhard,
could you comment on what you understood my intention was?
On 03/05/13 18:50, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au [130501 21:28]:
Would there be any hard objection to a source package format based on
git-bundle?
I think a git
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 07:43:17PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
One thing not clear is whether people thought I was referring to using
upstream repositories or alioth repositories (only containing commits
from the maintainer) as the content of such source packages. Bernhard,
could you comment
Le Fri, May 03, 2013 at 06:50:22PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
- legal problems
But the source packages are found on DVDs and mirrors all over the
world. Many people help us distributing Debian. We owe them to do
out best to keep them out of legal trouble for doing so.
Hi
Le Sat, May 04, 2013 at 05:06:37AM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 07:43:17PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
One thing not clear is whether people thought I was referring to using
upstream repositories or alioth repositories (only containing commits
from the
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
The fact is that Debian does not make much effort to ensure that we do not
distribute unredistributable files in our mirrors and installation media, once
a package has passed its first copyright and license review.
That is simply not
Le Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:11:23PM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
The fact is that Debian does not make much effort to ensure that we do not
distribute unredistributable files in our mirrors and installation media,
once
a package has
Charles Plessy wrote:
It would be definitely a big undertaking, but the point
I want to make is that one can not say that Git repositories could not
be redistributed by Debian and at the same time be satisfied with the
way we handle our packages currently. (And to make
Just following up on the earlier discussion about VCS (not just git) in
the packaging workflow
Would there be any hard objection to a source package format based on
git-bundle?
In other words, dpkg-source would extract all repository history (or all
of the branch used to build the package
On Wed, 01 May 2013 21:28:10 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Would there be any hard objection to a source package format based on
git-bundle?
Like Format: 3.0 (git) in dpkg-source(1)?
IIRC it works, it's just not allowed in the archive.
Then again, some of that behavior could be achieved
Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au writes:
Would there be any hard objection to a source package format based on
git-bundle?
ftp-master has previously made a hard objection to using the package
format in the Debian archives because of...
- much harder to scan the whole history of the repo
17 matches
Mail list logo
