On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 07:49:08PM +0200, Herv=E9 Cauwelier wrote:
That's my case (well...) and I decided to apply the Separation of
Concerns paradigm: software development and packaging are different
matters, so they are worked and versionned separately.
After a few month of usage, I clearly
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:33:49PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.13.1359 +0200]:
??? Users of __stable__ won't ever get that piece of software, no
matter if it goes into unstable, testing, or any other distribution
you might make
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 08:52:37PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
Miriam == Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Miriam Hi, The author of one of the packages I was packaging for my own
Miriam use has asked me to be the maintainer of the debian's
Miriam package. The problem that I found is that
also sprach Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.13.0234 +0200]:
It may be of value to users of stable who want to make their own
package of the latest version of the software for some reason.
Then they should bug the maintainer to have it go into unstable.
--
Please do not send copies of
On 4/13/05, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may be of value to users of stable who want to make their own
package of the latest version of the software for some reason.
Then they should bug the maintainer to have it go into unstable.
??? Users of __stable__ won't ever get that
also sprach Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.13.1359 +0200]:
??? Users of __stable__ won't ever get that piece of software, no
matter if it goes into unstable, testing, or any other distribution
you might make up.
Users of stable can just as well add unstable deb-src links to
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI a écrit :
What about the case in which the upstream maintainer is the Debian
maintainer? I create packages for a piece of sofware I've written.
That's my case (well...) and I decided to apply the Separation of
Concerns paradigm: software development and packaging are
Hi,
The author of one of the packages I was packaging for
my own use has asked me to be the maintainer of the
debian's package. The problem that I found is that in
latest versions he includes his own version of
debian's directory inside the original tar.gz file as
you download it from the web.
It then becomes a native debian package with no -# revisions.
C.S.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Hi,
The author of one of the packages I was packaging for
my own use has asked me to be the maintainer of the
debian's package. The problem that I found is that in
latest versions he includes
also sprach Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.12.2044 +0200]:
I've tried to explain to him the reasons behind doing
it the proper way, with a diff file, but I don't think
I was able to do that too well. Quoting him: The
reason I added debian subdirectory is to distribute it
with the
also sprach Carlo Segre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.12.2047 +0200]:
It then becomes a native debian package with no -# revisions.
No, it does not necessarily. You can have an empty .diff.gz file,
which would make sense in this case.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:44 +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Hi,
The author of one of the packages I was packaging for
my own use has asked me to be the maintainer of the
debian's package. The problem that I found is that in
latest versions he includes his own version of
debian's directory inside
Hi!
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 20:44, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
The
reason I added debian subdirectory is to distribute it
with the source files.
Any suggestions on how to deal with that?
For sam2p I created my own orig.tar.gz with the debian subdirectory
renamed to debian.dist. I don't delete it
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 21.16, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.12.2044 +0200]:
I've tried to explain to him the reasons behind doing
it the proper way, with a diff file, but I don't think
I was able to do that too well. Quoting him: The
reason I
also sprach Stefan Fritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.12.2109 +0200]:
For sam2p I created my own orig.tar.gz with the debian subdirectory
renamed to debian.dist.
Then it's not .orig anymore. The MD5 sum will differ.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`.
also sprach Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.12.2135 +0200]:
I think having the debian/ directory in the upstream source makes
sense if the packager works closely with the upstream author (or
is the same), ideally the package maintainer should have write
access to upstream's scm
On Apr 12, 2005 4:44 PM, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, but there is no point in having ./debian available upstream.
It's backwards.
It makes sense for software developers to have their own ./debian
directory so that they can use debian/rules binary to compile and test
their
also sprach Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.12. +0200]:
It makes sense for software developers to have their own ./debian
directory so that they can use debian/rules binary to compile and
test their software while developing it.
Huh? Why not just use ./Makefile?
What does
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 22:40 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.12. +0200]:
It makes sense for software developers to have their own ./debian
directory so that they can use debian/rules binary to compile and
test their software while
also sprach Steve Halasz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.12.2249 +0200]:
In my case some upstream developers were debian users who liked to
be able to build debs from CVS. This has been helpful since they
can make sure the app will work ok in debian before they release.
It's not strictly necessary,
martin f krafft wrote:
What does not make a lot of sense is to release the .tar.gz with
the ./debian directory, as Steve Halasz said, it's perfectly valid
to have it in CVS the important point would be to convince them
not to include it in the release.
I disagree. ./debian is the domain of
I demand that martin f krafft may or may not have written...
also sprach Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.12.
+0200]:
It makes sense for software developers to have their own ./debian
directory so that they can use debian/rules binary to compile and test
their software
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:27:52PM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
I disagree. ./debian is the domain of the Debian maintainer, not of
the upstream. Unless you are developing software *for* *Debian*
(native), there is no reason why you should bother with ./debian at
all.
What about the
also sprach Eduardo M KALINOWSKI [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.04.12.2327 +0200]:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2005/04/msg00106.html ). The
debian/ directory is in CVS, naturally.
Use a branch!
It is currently distributed in the .tar.gz file. Should it be
removed?
Yes, in my opinion.
Stefan == Stefan Fritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Stefan For sam2p I created my own orig.tar.gz with the debian
Stefan subdirectory renamed to debian.dist. I don't delete it because
Stefan the upstream changelog is in there (installed with
Stefan dh_installchangelogs
martin == martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
martin Tell him that the ./debian directory has no value when the
martin software is available from the Debian archive and that you need
martin to make modifications to it frequently. ...
It may be of value to users of stable who want
Miriam == Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Miriam Hi, The author of one of the packages I was packaging for my own
Miriam use has asked me to be the maintainer of the debian's
Miriam package. The problem that I found is that in latest versions he
Miriam includes his own version of debian's
27 matches
Mail list logo
