Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-09-27 Thread Josip Rodin
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: Homepage: http://some-project.some-place.org/ Please make sure that this line matches the regular expression `/^ Homepage: [^ ]*$/', as this allows `packages.debian.org' to parse it correctly. Back in

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-08-11 Thread Michelle Konzack
Hello Andreas and *, sorry for the late reply but I was some month not in Europe. Am 2006-06-10 04:41:51, schrieb Andreas Barth: * Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060610 03:11]: You can start without patching dpkg: Package: foo ... XB-Homepage: http://www.foo.org That

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-18 Thread James R. Van Zandt
Jörg Sommer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure but adding entries to the changelog does not magically update the date. AFAIK it happens if you use emacs. :-) dpkg-dev-el provides debian-changelog-mode, and by default emacs will visit

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-12 Thread Kai Hendry
I ended up writing this bash script: http://trac.natalian.org/browser/debian/latest-package-update.sh To print out the last modification of a (not installed) Debian package. Thanks for all your help. I wonder where do all the .changes files end up after an upload?

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-11 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:04:48PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: [snip] Anyone who makes a change and doesn't put it in the changelog should be chastised. But I agree, it does happen, and

outdated changelog timestamps (was Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields)

2006-06-11 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Goswin von Brederlow [Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:49:50 +0200]: David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:04:48PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: Sometimes, the changelog will tell you the package was last changed 3 month ago while actually it was changed yesterday and

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-10 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060610 03:11]: * Margarita Manterola [Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:35:54 -0300]: So, in any case, I'd encourage you to patch dpkg to handle a new Homepage field, and submit the patch. Once this is being used by a big

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-10 Thread Jörg Sommer
Hallo Bill, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: Date: [...] Talk to the dpkg maintainers--

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-10 Thread David Weinehall
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:04:48PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: [snip] Anyone who makes a change and doesn't put it in the changelog should be chastised. But I agree, it does happen, and there may even be cases Sure but adding

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-10 Thread Bill Allombert
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 10:37:31PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:04:48PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: [snip] Anyone who makes a change and doesn't put it in the changelog should be chastised. But I

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-09 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Kai Hendry wrote: I have two ideas that I would like to see in Debian. Two extra fields that show up in /var/lib/dpkg/available That won't be accepted. There are many other fields which I would like to have but which won't be integrated. That's why we need that:

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-09 Thread Bill Allombert
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: Date: [...] Talk to the dpkg maintainers-- they're free to implement this feature if they want. It's

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-09 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:50:37PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: Date: [...] Talk to the dpkg maintainers-- they're free to

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-09 Thread Lars Wirzenius
pe, 2006-06-09 kello 22:04 +0200, Bill Allombert kirjoitti: Sometimes, the changelog will tell you the package was last changed 3 month ago while actually it was changed yesterday and build and uploaded today. This can lead you to go on a wild-goose chase if you do not know about the problem.

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-09 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: pe, 2006-06-09 kello 22:04 +0200, Bill Allombert kirjoitti: Sometimes, the changelog will tell you the package was last changed 3 month ago while actually it was changed yesterday and build and uploaded today. This can lead you to go on a wild-goose

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-09 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Margarita Manterola [Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:35:54 -0300]: So, in any case, I'd encourage you to patch dpkg to handle a new Homepage field, and submit the patch. Once this is being used by a big number of packages, you might bring this up again. I'd really like to have the Homepage field in

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-09 Thread Andreas Barth
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060610 03:11]: * Margarita Manterola [Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:35:54 -0300]: So, in any case, I'd encourage you to patch dpkg to handle a new Homepage field, and submit the patch. Once this is being used by a big number of packages, you might bring this up

Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Kai Hendry
I have two ideas that I would like to see in Debian. Two extra fields that show up in /var/lib/dpkg/available One being Date: To show when the package was last touched. Currently I get this information from the painfully from the Latest News section of the QA page, e.g.:

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Kai Hendry wrote: One being Date: To show when the package was last touched. Currently I get this information from the painfully from the Latest News section of the QA page, e.g.: http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/geomview.html Is there any reason why zcat

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Kai Hendry
On 2006-06-08T00:31-0700 Don Armstrong wrote: Is there any reason why zcat /usr/share/doc/package/changelog.Debian.gz |perl -ne \ 'next unless /^ -- .+?\s{2}(.+)$/; print $1,qq(\n) and exit;'; isn't sufficient for all non-native packages? What if that package isn't installed on your system?

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Kai Hendry wrote: On 2006-06-08T00:31-0700 Don Armstrong wrote: Is there any reason why zcat /usr/share/doc/package/changelog.Debian.gz |perl -ne \ 'next unless /^ -- .+?\s{2}(.+)$/; print $1,qq(\n) and exit;'; isn't sufficient for all non-native packages? What if

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Kai Hendry
On 2006-06-08T01:19-0700 Don Armstrong wrote: You might as well start by looking for something like that, then just fall back upon anything that looks like a URL if there's no indication which url is the specific upstream location; putting this into the control file doesn't really make all

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Bill Allombert
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:31:29AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Kai Hendry wrote: One being Date: To show when the package was last touched. Currently I get this information from the painfully from the Latest News section of the QA page, e.g.:

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Waters
Date: no. This is pointless. The information is rarely of interest to anyone, and is already available to those who actually want to know, for whatever reason. And in any case, it has nothing to do with policy. Such a field could not be created manually. It would have to be generated by

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Bill Allombert
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: Date: no. This is pointless. The information is rarely of interest to anyone, and is already available to those who actually want to know, for whatever reason. And in any case, it has nothing to do with policy. Such a field

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Vincent Danjean
Kai Hendry wrote: Many package descriptions have a Website: field already. It should just be in policy too, to promote this good helpful practice. For now, it is in the developper reference (and it is ' Homepage:' at the end of the long description):

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Waters
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:48:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:28:36AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: Date: [...] Talk to the dpkg maintainers-- they're free to implement this feature if they want. It's not a matter for policy. I agree it is not a matter for

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Russ Allbery
Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kai Hendry wrote: Many package descriptions have a Website: field already. It should just be in policy too, to promote this good helpful practice. For now, it is in the developper reference (and it is ' Homepage:' at the end of the long

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Waters
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:19:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: URL: this has been discussed before many times. No reasonable argument for making it a special field, rather than part of the package description, has ever been put forth. The homepage

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Kai Hendry
On 2006-06-08T17:49-0700 Chris Waters wrote: Until dpkg supports it, there's little point in debating it on -policy. So that's how it works? First dpkg implements the feature, then we can think about making it policy? The devel-reference hack isn't working.

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Margarita Manterola
Hi! On 6/8/06, Kai Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006-06-08T17:49-0700 Chris Waters wrote: Until dpkg supports it, there's little point in debating it on -policy. So that's how it works? First dpkg implements the feature, then we can think about making it policy? Actually, yes. That's

Re: Date and Upsteam-URL fields

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Waters
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:51:52AM +0900, Kai Hendry wrote: On 2006-06-08T17:49-0700 Chris Waters wrote: Until dpkg supports it, there's little point in debating it on -policy. So that's how it works? First dpkg implements the feature, then we can think about making it policy? Basically,