On Wednesday 05 August 2009 14:21:54 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Michael Banck mba...@debian.org (05/08/2009):
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:15:22AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
And for the format of the patch, I do not know what to tell them
apart that unified diff is the preferred format of
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:15:22AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
And for the format of the patch, I do not know what to tell them apart that
unified diff is the preferred format of some Debian developers,
It's the preferred format for 99% of all Free Software work/projects
AFAICT.
and that we
Michael Banck mba...@debian.org (05/08/2009):
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:15:22AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
And for the format of the patch, I do not know what to tell them
apart that unified diff is the preferred format of some Debian
developers,
It's the preferred format for 99% of
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:45:00PM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
The point, rather, seems to be that unified-diff format is the de
facto standard format for exchanging patch information.
Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:53:21AM +0200, Michael Banck a
Perhaps you could talk to upstream about switching to either using
unified diffs for updates, tarballs for every release or a git/etc
repository?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Le Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 09:51:26AM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit :
Perhaps you could talk to upstream about switching to either using
unified diffs for updates, tarballs for every release or a git/etc
repository?
For sure, Debian can suggest them git, Ubuntu can suggest them bzr, Fedora can
suggest
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Le Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 09:51:26AM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit :
Perhaps you could talk to upstream about switching to either using
unified diffs for updates, tarballs for every release or a git/etc
repository?
For sure, Debian can suggest them git,
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
Another question that I would like to ask is on the auto-patching
functionality. One of the programs we package, EMBOSS, is released once a
year
every 15th of July, and other updates are made via patches. Currently it is
possible to just give the
Vincent Danjean wrote:
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
I see that .bzip2 and .lzma are also supported compression methods for the 3.0
(native) format as well as for the binary packages. But I do not think it would
be useful to add zip to this list. It seems to me that the
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
I see that .bzip2 and .lzma are also supported compression methods for the 3.0
(native) format as well as for the binary packages. But I do not think it
would
be useful to add zip to this list. It seems to me that the only thing needed
is
the
Le Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:18:57PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
The patch is not in unified format, which causes the failure of
dpkg-buildpackage. It is trivial to refresh it with quilt to the unified
format, but this introduces a divergence with upstream that I would prefer
to
Le Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 04:55:16PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
I updated the wiki page listing the status of this project:
http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0
Bonjour Raphaël,
first of all, thank you for making things progress for the support of a
next-generation source format.
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
But actually, among the programs that are not distributed upstream in a tar.gz
format, we in the Debian Med team have as many zip cases as bzip2. Do you
think
that it would be possible to support zip format (i.e. .zip, .jar and .xpi
extensions) for
Le Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 11:03:11AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
About zip support:
But actually, among the programs that are not distributed upstream in a
tar.gz
format, we in the Debian Med team have as many zip cases as bzip2. Do you
Charles Plessy wrote:
I see that .bzip2 and .lzma are also supported compression methods for the 3.0
(native) format as well as for the binary packages. But I do not think it
would
be useful to add zip to this list. It seems to me that the only thing needed
is
the capacity to unpack the
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
But actually, among the programs that are not distributed upstream in a
tar.gz format, we in the Debian Med team have as many zip cases as
bzip2. Do you think that it would be possible to support zip format
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
I see that .bzip2 and .lzma are also supported compression methods for the
3.0
(native) format as well as for the binary packages. But I do not think it
would
be useful to add zip to this list. It seems to me that the only thing needed
On 2009-08-02, Vincent Danjean vdanjean...@free.fr wrote:
Unpacking a source package is not needed during an upgrade. However, it
occurs before
a build.
So, I understand the question of Charles as do we want that stable dpkg be
able to
unpack all packages from testing ?. I have no strong
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 08:11:57PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2009-08-02, Vincent Danjean vdanjean...@free.fr wrote:
Unpacking a source package is not needed during an upgrade. However, it
occurs before
a build.
So, I understand the question of Charles as do we want that stable dpkg
19 matches
Mail list logo
