On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
I don't even see how it can work. Perhaps you need to explain.
*sigh*…
• Take output of 「apt-cache show texlive-latex-extra」
• Replace all newlines with \x01
• Replace all “\x01\x20” with just a space (0x20)
• Replace all remaining \x01 back to
On 2015-01-20 11:59:45 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
I don't even see how it can work. Perhaps you need to explain.
*sigh*…
• Take output of 「apt-cache show texlive-latex-extra」
• Replace all newlines with \x01
• Replace all “\x01\x20” with
This is *not* what I asked. I've complained on the long description
only. The other fields like Depends: are still needed, without
having them to be truncated by less.
This shows that any attempt to write a wrapper will fail at some
point, and the real solution would be either to limit the
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
which doesn't work at all, neither with zsh nor with bash.
It works with mksh, GNU bash, ATT ksh93, zsh (Debian sid).
I don’t see why it shouldn’t work on older versions either.
It didn't work on Debian sid.
WFM. I suggest you take that up
On 2015-01-15 14:00:21 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
which doesn't work at all, neither with zsh nor with bash.
It works with mksh, GNU bash, ATT ksh93, zsh (Debian sid).
I don’t see why it shouldn’t work on older versions either.
On 2015-01-13 10:22:47 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
which doesn't work at all, neither with zsh nor with bash.
It works with mksh, GNU bash, ATT ksh93, zsh (Debian sid).
I don’t see why it shouldn’t work on older versions either.
It didn't work
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
which doesn't work at all, neither with zsh nor with bash.
It works with mksh, GNU bash, ATT ksh93, zsh (Debian sid).
I don’t see why it shouldn’t work on older versions either.
I still want to be able to see the full Depends: and so on.
On 2015-01-10 10:50:58 +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
True. I honestly think that this is such an insignificant problem that
updating the sed or perl script every so often wouldn't be that much of
a problem.
But this may yield bug reports, which annoy the developers.
--
Vincent Lefèvre
On 2015-01-10 13:34:37 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Nonsense, the format is trivial and stable.
I've never seen that it was stable.
A quick one-line-ish fix for this (requires a modern shell) is:
apt-cache show texlive-latex-extra | tr '\n' $'\001' | sed $'s/\001 / /g' |
tr $'\001' '\n'
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 01:24:20PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2015-01-10 13:34:37 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Nonsense, the format is trivial and stable.
I've never seen that it was stable.
A quick one-line-ish fix for this (requires a modern shell) is:
apt-cache show
On 2015-01-10 17:27:39 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
I also think it would be best to switch that Description to use list
syntax. Daniel Burrows prepared a policy proposal some time ago, and
did some analysis:
https://wiki.debian.org/Aptitude%3A%3AParse-Description-Bullets%3Dtrue
the
Quoting Vincent Lefevre (2015-01-12 16:51:39)
On 2015-01-09 14:56:14 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
The blank lines are not the only problem. Removing them would be a
big step forward, but the description would actually still be much
too long (more
On 2015-01-13 01:42:57 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 01:24:20PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2015-01-10 13:34:37 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Nonsense, the format is trivial and stable.
I've never seen that it was stable.
A quick one-line-ish fix for
On 2015-01-09 14:56:14 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
The blank lines are not the only problem. Removing them would be a big
step forward, but the description would actually still be much too
long (more than 900 lines).
Lines aren't really the
Hi,
Don Armstrong:
Every extra line is only an extra byte, after all.
Empty lines, however, require three. (Space period LF)
It would probably be ideal if there was a better way of indicating which
latex modules were in each texlive package than currently, but until a
better method is
On 10 January 2015 at 17:27, Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org wrote:
So, no, fixing the translators tools is not an option. Whether or
not texlive-* packages are too long is a debate I already had with
Norbert in the bug report he mentioned. He gave a rationale which
doesn't entirely
You definitely need to see/know about the surrounding context. (it might be
done differently than today, but the need is there).
bye
Joe
Danish
On 10 January 2015 at 17:27, Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org wrote:
So, no, fixing the translators tools is not an option. Whether or
not
Hi!
On Sun, 2015-01-11, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On 10 January 2015 at 17:27, Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org wrote:
I think fixing translator tools would be an improvement, because it
would reduce translator work in other situations too, by chunking the
description on long lists
On 01/09/2015 09:03 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi everyone,
(I am not subscribed to Cc, due to obvious reasons, so please Cc
me any further *relevant* remarks - I don't care for the rants)
concerning Vincent's email: he mentioned that:
but the maintainer disagrees.
but he did not
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Some texlive-* packages (and perhaps others) have a huge extended
description, e.g. more than 1900 lines for texlive-latex-extra!
Sounds like a symptom of bundling lots of CTAN packages into one
On 2015-01-11 10:37, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Don Armstrong:
Every extra line is only an extra byte, after all.
Empty lines, however, require three. (Space period LF)
Somebody needed to point that out, of course. In compression they will
most certainly map to a single byte. Yes, this would
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Some texlive-* packages (and perhaps others) have a huge extended
description, e.g. more than 1900 lines for texlive-latex-extra!
Sounds like a symptom of bundling lots of CTAN packages into one
Debian package. Personally I think it would
Hi!
On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 07:20:31 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Please also note that identifying lists in package descriptions
might be a very interesting thing to do, given the various way you
(maintainers) all have to make lists, given the loose rules for
writing package descriptions
On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
You can pipe the output to head or tail to sort of achieve what you
want to.
Obviously not. It may be possible with something like sed or perl,
but this may not be future-proof, and breakage due to changes in
Nonsense, the format is trivial and
2015-01-10 4:31 GMT+01:00 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
It would probably be ideal if there was a better way of indicating which
latex modules were in each texlive package than currently, but until a
better method is found, this is probably the best of
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
It would probably be ideal if there was a better way of indicating which
latex modules were in each texlive package than currently, but until a
better method is found, this is probably the best of bad options.
+1. I cannot overstate how useful it is to
Quoting Vincent Lefevre (vinc...@vinc17.net):
The issue with the translations is just a consequence, but also
just because the translators don't use a properly designed tool.
I very much like such answers. Really.
Short followup: patches welcomed. Please note that this is against a
basecode
On 10/01/15 08:59, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2015-01-10 07:05:48 +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
Otherwise shouldn't utilities (such as dpkg -s) provide a
configurable way to limit the output of the Description: field?
You can pipe the output to head or tail to sort of achieve what you
want to.
On Jan 09, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
Shouldn't the length be limited by the Debian policy?
Shouldn't the length be limited by common sense?
In this case I think that listing the packages without the description
of each one would be enough...
--
ciao,
Marco
pgpbuMAQ6Ch9n.pgp
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:56:25PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Some texlive-* packages (and perhaps others) have a huge extended
description, e.g. more than 1900 lines for texlive-latex-extra!
Shouldn't the length be limited by the Debian policy?
Otherwise shouldn't utilities (such as
Marco d'Itri writes (Re: length of a package extended description):
On Jan 09, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
Shouldn't the length be limited by the Debian policy?
Shouldn't the length be limited by common sense?
Yes.
In this case I think that listing the packages without
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:56:25PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Some texlive-* packages (and perhaps others) have a huge extended
description, e.g. more than 1900 lines for texlive-latex-extra!
Shouldn't the length be limited by the Debian policy?
Some data: count of packages with descs of a
On 2015-01-09 16:02:52 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Vincent, perhaps you would care to file a bug with a patch which
reduces the description to a plausible size ?
I reported
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=774942
but the maintainer disagrees.
--
Vincent Lefèvre
Adam Borowski writes (Re: length of a package extended description):
Some data: count of packages with descs of a given length:
...
Here's Adam's data with cumulative package count, and cumulative
percentage:
1- 4 13772 13772 30%
5- 9 21324 35096 77%
10- 14 6531 41627 91%
15- 19
Hi everyone,
(I am not subscribed to Cc, due to obvious reasons, so please Cc
me any further *relevant* remarks - I don't care for the rants)
concerning Vincent's email: he mentioned that:
but the maintainer disagrees.
but he did not mention that:
* half of the package descriptions are empty
On 2015-01-10 07:05:48 +1100, Riley Baird wrote:
Otherwise shouldn't utilities (such as dpkg -s) provide a
configurable way to limit the output of the Description: field?
You can pipe the output to head or tail to sort of achieve what you
want to.
Obviously not. It may be possible with
Otherwise shouldn't utilities (such as dpkg -s) provide a
configurable way to limit the output of the Description: field?
You can pipe the output to head or tail to sort of achieve what you
want to.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On 2015-01-10 05:03:56 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi everyone,
(I am not subscribed to Cc, due to obvious reasons, so please Cc
me any further *relevant* remarks - I don't care for the rants)
concerning Vincent's email: he mentioned that:
but the maintainer disagrees.
but he did not
On Fri, 09 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
The blank lines are not the only problem. Removing them would be a big
step forward, but the description would actually still be much too
long (more than 900 lines).
Lines aren't really the issue here; the primary one is space in the
Packages
Some texlive-* packages (and perhaps others) have a huge extended
description, e.g. more than 1900 lines for texlive-latex-extra!
Shouldn't the length be limited by the Debian policy?
Otherwise shouldn't utilities (such as dpkg -s) provide a
configurable way to limit the output of the
40 matches
Mail list logo
