On Thursday 19 May 2005 06:40, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:29:03 +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 08:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
- so you're right back to distribution specific knowledge being
- needed anyhow
No.
On Tue, 17 May 2005 11:35:56 +1000, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Howdy mentors, I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages
that currently use hand-rolled debian/rules files.
Are the packages in question buggy, or you just find hand
rolled files aesthetically
On Tue, 17 May 2005 12:07:01 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This best practice fails miserably if the maintainer is not always
perfectly responsive. As soon as the maintainer goes on vacation (or
MIA) and gets a security hole or RC bug in his package, the more
nonstandard their
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj) writes:
I find myself agreeing, except that I feel that way as soon as
people get away from tried and tested POSIX commands and
dpkg-dev. There are far more people who are competent with cp,
install, mv, make, and other common POSIX
On 20050517T120043-0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
If I were to receive a bug report, say wishlist severity, containing a
patch that rewrites one of my packages' debian/rules to use debhelper, I
would be very upset: it would feel like an insult toward my style of
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:16:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I could, but in charity I shall not, point to cases where the
helper packages are used as a crutch, with the developer having no
idea what was going on , and copying rules files around, engaging in
cargo cult
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I appreciate the build system for certain red hat and suse packages not
being arcane and distribution specific when I try and incorporate
changes made in packages on those distributions, and I tend to return
the favour.
Grep through the rpm book for all the %
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I prefer to have these command (usually, mv, cp, gzip, etc)
explicitly present, so one does not have to go looking through the
library to guess what is being done.
Wow, here it is 2005, a whole 8 years since debhelper was introduced and
Manoj still doesn't
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 08:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I find myself agreeing, except that I feel that way as soon as
people get away from tried and tested POSIX commands and
dpkg-dev. There are far more people who are competent with cp,
install, mv, make, and other common POSIX
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Ben Finney wrote:
I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to use
debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
The current best practise is to not assume that everybody wants to use
also sprach martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.05.17.1342 +0200]:
I think it's a miss-quote. Morgenröte (The Dawn), where I believe
this is from, deals a lot with belief not with thought, and
Nietzsche makes a big deal about this distinction throughout his
works. I would be surprised if
On 20050517T113556+1000, Ben Finney wrote:
I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to use
debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
Don't do it without the maintainer's go-ahead. The current best
practice
On 17-May-2005, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Ben Finney wrote:
I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently
use hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise
to use debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
The current best practise is to
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 04:11, Adeodato Simó wrote:
debhelper(7) contains a list of all the available dh_foo programs, and
a short description of each.
not quite, it only lists those delivered by the debhelper package, below the
list the manpage has the following:
If a program's name
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Ben Finney wrote:
I'm surprised that people have consistently read submit patches as
somehow bypassing the maintainer, or telling him what to do. To whom
would I be submitting the patches, if not the maintainer?
To the maintainer, via the BTS as a wishlist bug. That's
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
If I were to receive a bug report, say wishlist severity, containing a
patch that rewrites one of my packages' debian/rules to use debhelper, I
would be very upset: it would feel like an insult toward my style of
packaging.
You need to grow a thicker skin. By
Quoting Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
If I were to receive a bug report, say wishlist severity, containing a
patch that rewrites one of my packages' debian/rules to use debhelper, I
would be very upset: it would feel like an insult toward my style of
packaging.
You
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Don't do it without the maintainer's go-ahead. The current best
practice is to use whatever (non-evil thing that) works for the
maintainer.
This best practice fails miserably if the maintainer is not always
perfectly responsive. As soon as the maintainer goes on
also sprach Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.05.17.1800 +0200]:
You need to grow a thicker skin. By your reasoning, any
substantial patch or code review is a personal attack; that is not
an attitude that is conducive to evolving good code.
Unfortunately, we have many thin-skinned
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 18.00, Joey Hess wrote:
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
If I were to receive a bug report, say wishlist severity, containing a
patch that rewrites one of my packages' debian/rules to use debhelper,
I would be very upset: it would feel like an insult toward my style of
Adrian von Bidder wrote on 17/05/2005 21:36:
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 15.07, Ben Finney wrote:
I'm surprised that people have consistently read submit patches as
somehow bypassing the maintainer, or telling him what to do. To whom
would I be submitting the patches, if not the maintainer?
If I
Howdy mentors,
I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to use
debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
Any existing things to check document for moving to either or both
of these systems?
--
\ Ours
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:35:56AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to use
debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
I don't think there's really consensus on it, but from
* Ben Finney [Tue, 17 May 2005 11:35:56 +1000]:
I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use
hand-rolled debian/rules files.
Which packages, and why? I mean, there are very cleanly packaged files
that don't use debhelper nor cdbs (see e.g. make). But there can be
On 17-May-2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
I don't think there's really consensus on it, but from personal
experience, I highly favour debhelper for reasons of least surprise:
This seems a good reason, thanks.
On 17-May-2005, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Ben Finney [Tue, 17 May 2005 11:35:56
25 matches
Mail list logo
