On 11/11/19 6:30 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Yes, and that's why I use debian/master instead of debian/buster or
> debian/bullseye. :-)
>
> When I do create debian/buster (once it became the stable branch), the
> first thing I did after I branched off debian/buster from
> debian/master was
On 11/14/19 1:59 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Let me try to be more specific. Many packages are maintained by people
> who use gbp. Many packages have pristine-tar branches but do not have
> "pristine-tar = True" set. When I work on one of these packages (and I
> work on many packages with many
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 19:59:07 -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Let me try to be more specific. Many packages are maintained by people
> who use gbp. Many packages have pristine-tar branches but do not have
> "pristine-tar = True" set. When I work on one of these packages (and I
> work on many
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:23 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/11/19 12:50 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > It is absolutely not possible to set the correct
> > pristine-tar=True/False in ~/.gbp.conf to work with your packages
> > (which avoid pristine-tar) and the vast majority of gbp packages in
> >
On 11/13/19 1:53 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Except for not agreeing with your opinion about pristine-tar I agree that
> debian/gbp.conf is frequently not very helpful and flooded with unneeded
> options sometimes. It really makes sense to use ~/.gbp.conf instead.
This was the single and only
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:23:08AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> If you're rebuilding a package which is already in the archive, you're
> supposed to take the .orig.tar.xz from the archive, and if not, you're
> supposed to generate it with git archive (or with the shortcut for that
> command:
On 11/11/19 12:50 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:59 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 11/11/19 1:02 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:58:42AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
> >> anything to debian/gbp.conf. It's as if you were adding your text editor
> >> preferences in the package. Instead, please prefer writing in ~/.gbp.conf.
> >
>
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:59 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/11/19 1:02 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>
> >> Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
> >> anything to debian/gbp.conf. It's as if you were
On 11/11/19 1:02 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>> Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
>> anything to debian/gbp.conf. It's as if you were adding your text editor
>> preferences in the package. Instead,
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
> anything to debian/gbp.conf. It's as if you were adding your text editor
> preferences in the package. Instead, please prefer writing in ~/.gbp.conf.
I keep most
On 10/5/19 7:48 PM, Attila Szalay wrote:
> I added the "pbuilder-options = --source-only-changes" option to the
> [buildpackage] part of the debian/gbp.conf
Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
anything to debian/gbp.conf. It's as if you were adding your text editor
Am Sonntag, den 06.10.2019, 22:09 +0200 schrieb Bernd Zeimetz:
> Hi,
>
> > I'm struggling with it for a while now and I couldn't find the solution.
> > I have a package maintained with git-buildpackage. And now, that I
> > "cannot" upload binary packages I tried to compile the new version with
>
Am Sonntag, den 06.10.2019, 11:27 +0200 schrieb Alf Gaida:
> On 06.10.19 08:18, Attila Szalay wrote:
> > That option means that the system will create not only the binary
> > .amd.changes but another changes too which contains only the source
> > packages. And I would like to use this method to be
On 10/6/19 11:15 PM, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
> And what about
>
> dgit --gbp push-source ?
not going to touch that. dgit is imho way to over-engineered while
having requirements at the same time, that I don't want to have (like
using dgit.debian.org...).
We have salsa as central
Hi,
> I'm struggling with it for a while now and I couldn't find the solution.
> I have a package maintained with git-buildpackage. And now, that I
> "cannot" upload binary packages I tried to compile the new version with
> the option to create a source-only changes file too. But for some reason
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 6:27 PM Alf Gaida wrote:
>
> On 06.10.19 08:18, Attila Szalay wrote:
> > That option means that the system will create not only the binary
> > .amd.changes but another changes too which contains only the source
> > packages. And I would like to use this method to be sure
On 06.10.19 08:18, Attila Szalay wrote:
> That option means that the system will create not only the binary
> .amd.changes but another changes too which contains only the source
> packages. And I would like to use this method to be sure the package
> compiles, to be able to run the lintian
That option means that the system will create not only the binary
.amd.changes but another changes too which contains only the source
packages. And I would like to use this method to be sure the package
compiles, to be able to run the lintian against the package and even be
able to test it before
On 05.10.19 23:14, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 10:02:54PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
that is miss something - my point is: Why do you invoke pbuilder (read
the same question about sbuild too) to create pure source packages?
>>> To make sure they build correctly.
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 10:02:54PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> >> that is miss something - my point is: Why do you invoke pbuilder (read
> >> the same question about sbuild too) to create pure source packages?
> > To make sure they build correctly.
> >
> Ok, checked the calender, it is not April 1.
On 05.10.19 21:48, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 08:06:56PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
>> that is miss something - my point is: Why do you invoke pbuilder (read
>> the same question about sbuild too) to create pure source packages?
> To make sure they build correctly.
>
Ok,
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 08:06:56PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> that is miss something - my point is: Why do you invoke pbuilder (read
> the same question about sbuild too) to create pure source packages?
To make sure they build correctly.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 05.10.19 19:48, Attila Szalay wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm struggling with it for a while now and I couldn't find the
> solution. I have a package maintained with git-buildpackage. And now,
> that I "cannot" upload binary packages I tried to compile the new
> version with the option to create a
Hi,
I'm struggling with it for a while now and I couldn't find the solution. I
have a package maintained with git-buildpackage. And now, that I "cannot"
upload binary packages I tried to compile the new version with the option
to create a source-only changes file too. But for some reason that
25 matches
Mail list logo
