Andreas Tille dijo [Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 08:21:47PM +0100]:
Heh, start a bit earlier (think Ruby)... Educate maintainers to
release proper .tar.gz, not braindead .gem packages containing the
equivalent to an orig.tar.gz (but created due to a nice
Hello Jörg,
Jörg Sommer wrote:
Hello Raphael,
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jörg Sommer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jed (U)
This is a SVN snapshot. There's no release of it. I fail to see how to
point to a changelog file in a SVN repository. How should I handle this
situation?
By
Hello Raphael,
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jörg Sommer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jed (U)
This is a SVN snapshot. There's no release of it. I fail to see how to
point to a changelog file in a SVN repository. How should I handle this
situation?
Bye, Jörg.
--
Prof. in der
Is it worth investing much effort into debugging watch file
issues?
In my experience, watchfiles are seldom useful. There was
the whole problem with getting at HTTPS URLs; the
sourceforge workarounds (that broke); etc. One of the
packages I maintain (deutex) does not have the latest
upstream
Hi Jon,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Jon Dowland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it worth investing much effort into debugging watch file
issues?
In my experience, yes. I can cite the example of the perl group: 679
packages group maintained. You'll guess that there's no way in earth a
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Martín Ferrari wrote:
Of course, we have luck, because CPAN (99% of our packages come from
there, and we have only 4 unsolvable watch problems) is pretty
well-behaving and consistent, compared to other upstreams. But chances
are that watchfiles can be useful for the
Andreas Tille dijo [Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 03:02:31PM +0100]:
Well, in fact it is helpful if you teach upstream to organise releases
that way that watchfiles would work. This is not only in the interest
of Debian but for the whole FLOSS community so other interested users
will be able to
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Heh, start a bit earlier (think Ruby)... Educate maintainers to
release proper .tar.gz, not braindead .gem packages containing the
equivalent to an orig.tar.gz (but created due to a nice
don't-ask-me-why-that's-not-properly-implemented bug in December 31,
Hi
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:20:18 -0600
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems like I forgot to make sure to list only those affecting packages in
unstable. But it would anyway be nice to keep both watch files working :)
I know, but I tend to forgot to this when I upload package to
Hi
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:41:34 -0600
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michal Čihař [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gammu
The problem with this is that there are stable versions, for which I
use watch file and are uploaded to unstable. Testing versions I put
(usually) to experimental and I
Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your guess is as good as mine. I've asked and didn't get any answer. As
near as I can tell, they all really like hacking on GNU Backgammon, but
none of them like doing release management. (Some of them use Windows and
do
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Ack, what about only reporting (thus in a non automated way) on those
which are not affected by any repackaging/similar version part?
It's might be acceptable but I'm not sure either. Some packages have
development version
Hello,
Michal Čihař wrote:
Hi
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:41:34 -0600
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michal Čihař [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gammu
The problem with this is that there are stable versions, for which I
use watch file and are uploaded to unstable. Testing versions I put
On Sunday 17 February 2008 15:41, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Hello all,
[Please respect the Reply-To header]
In order to bring some more QA on the watch files subject I'd like to start
a permanent MBF on packages whose Debian upstream version (the version
string from Version: without the epoch
Hello all,
[Please respect the Reply-To header]
In order to bring some more QA on the watch files subject I'd like to start a
permanent MBF on packages whose Debian upstream version (the version string
from Version: without the epoch and the Debian revision) is higher than the
latest upstream
Hello,
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Rationale: the watch files are meant to keep track of upstream and if there's
a newer version not being reported by the watch file it means that it needs
to be fixed.
Please note that this situation often occurs when the maintainer
Hello,
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Rationale: the watch files are meant to keep track of upstream and if
there's a newer version not being reported by the watch file it means
that it needs to be fixed.
Please note that this situation often
Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
On Sunday 17 February 2008 13:41:34 Raphael Geissert wrote:
If nobody objects I'll start filling (in an automated way since there are
no false positives) reports on the 307 source packages which report a
Debian upstream version higher than Upstream version by the
On Sunday 17 February 2008 13:41:34 Raphael Geissert wrote:
If nobody objects I'll start filling (in an automated way since there are
no false positives) reports on the 307 source packages which report a
Debian upstream version higher than Upstream version by the watch file.
I don't know what
On Sunday 17 February 2008 17:22, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Sunday 17 February 2008 15:41, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Please note that this situation often occurs when the maintainer didn't
make the watch file strip some +VCSrevN that was added to the Debian
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Sunday 17 February 2008 15:41, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Please note that this situation often occurs when the maintainer didn't
make the watch file strip some +VCSrevN that was added to the Debian
Version.
If nobody objects I'll start filling (in an automated
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In order to bring some more QA on the watch files subject I'd like to
start a permanent MBF on packages whose Debian upstream version (the
version string from Version: without the epoch and the Debian revision)
is higher than the latest upstream
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Sunday 17 February 2008 17:22, Raphael Geissert wrote:
If Debian's 0.11+1-1 is upstream's 0.11 why not just strip the '+1' using
dversionmangle?
That's in my POV the bug.
I think rewriting watch files for one time events is a mistake. If this
were
a permanent
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:55:26 -0600 Raphael Geissert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Sunday 17 February 2008 17:22, Raphael Geissert wrote:
If Debian's 0.11+1-1 is upstream's 0.11 why not just strip the '+1'
using
dversionmangle?
That's in my POV the bug.
I think
Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gnubg
Upstream stopped doing real releases a while back although hopefully will
again do some someday. Currently, all that's available is nightly
snapshots. I can:
* Keep pointing the
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Upstream stopped doing real releases a while back although hopefully
will again do some someday. Currently, all that's available is nightly
snapshots. I can:
* Keep pointing the watch file at the actual official release
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Ack, what about only reporting (thus in a non automated way) on those which
are not affected by any repackaging/similar version part?
It's might be acceptable but I'm not sure either. Some packages have
development version packaged and those
27 matches
Mail list logo
