Hey.
i won't adopt the maintainership for wicd, mainly because of upstream's
inactivity. Basically, it seems that Tom van Braeckel is the only
contributer currently, who doesn't have the time and priority to
actively develop wicd. Therefore i don't see in wicd a future.
I'm really
btw. thanks for recognizing/appreciating my rather small contributions :)
Hey,
thanks a lot for your comments.
Additionally, i'll ask upstream what they think about option 1) and 3),
or generally how important that at_console block is for them.
Again, thanks :)
On 02/20/2016 03:38 AM, Axel Beckert wrote:
Hi,
thanks toogley for trying to tackle this issue
Hey.
i want to fix this
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/dbus-policy-at-console.html report in
the wicd package.
the concerning lines in the wicd source dir are
(https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/wicd.git/tree/other/wicd.conf)
forgot to reply all
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: reason not to upload new versions as fast as possible to
unstable? (expect attempt to migrate to testing )
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:59:02 +0100
From: toogley <toog...@mailbox.org>
To: Gianfranco Cost
Hey,
the wicd package currently has version 1.7.3 in unstable and testing,
but 1.7.4 is already imported. Generally speaking it seems to me very
reasonable to try to upload versions as fast as possible into unstable
and testing, so I'm just asking for clarification:
Apart from wanting to
Hey,
of course he will - but i want to learn it, so that i can be a
"independent" maintainer. Independent in the sense of not bound to other
people, so that i don't have to rely on the experience of someone else :D
thanks for your answer :)
On 02/12/2016 01:42 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna
Seems reasonable to post this message also here.. :D
Forwarded Message
Subject: informing you as my sponsor about what I do (especially emails)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 13:27:43 +0100
From: toogley <toog...@mailbox.org>
To: a...@debian.org
Hey.
i know that you receive
thanks.
On 02/07/2016 10:30 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2016 18:12:36 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote:
$ lintian ../wicd-daemon_1.7.3-3_all.deb
$ lintian ../wicd-gtk_1.7.3-3_all.deb
$
==> Where is my mistake?
On which Debian release have you run lintian? On Debian stable? (I
guess
Hey.
I can't reproduce #758737
(https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=758737)
According to https://bugs.launchpad.net/wicd/+bug/1232521 it was not
fixed by upstream yet.
Did i make a mistake? If no, should i message the commands below to
758737-submit...@bugs.debian.org with a
Beckert wrote:
Hi toogley,
toogley wrote:
i want to fix https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=698748
According to
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=698748#10 ,this
bug was fixed by upstream. But he didn't say in which version.
Well, the bug was reported against 1.7.2.
I think, i can do it. thanks^^
On 02/07/2016 09:23 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
Hi,
toogley wrote:
But an additional question: Why is the bug #698748 still in the
category "outstanding bugs" => was it just forgotten to mark as
done, or is that expected?
Forgotten. Or more precise:
FYI: the "Everthing" typo in README:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/wicd/+bug/1542945
On 02/07/2016 09:23 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
Hi,
toogley wrote:
But an additional question: Why is the bug #698748 still in the
category "outstanding bugs" => was it just fo
i want to fix https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=698748
According to https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=698748#10
,this
bug was fixed by upstream. But he didn't say in which version. But if he had
merged the fix into the main branch, i wouldn't find that typo in
hey. i want to fix the lintian errors
https://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/packa...@qa.debian.org.html#wicd
in the
1.7.3-3 wicd packages
$ git checkout -b debian/1.7.3-3
Switched to a new branch 'debian/1.7.3-3'
$ git buildpackage --git-debian-branch=debian/1.7.3-3
[...]
$
$ lintian
Hey,
what exactly needs to be changed in the package to be uploaded in
unstable? Or what is the reason for waiting some time before changing
from "UNRELEASED" to "unstable" inside the debian changelog file?
On 01/26/2016 02:24 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
Hi,
toogley wr
On 02/01/2016 09:11 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
> In general or in case of wicd as of now?
i'm interested in both, so thanks for answering it :)
On 02/01/2016 09:11 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
> And the uploads 1.7.3-1 and 1.7.3-2 have shown that this probably was
> a good idea. ;-)
Do you mean
does it bother, when i work at the package within a delay of a week at most?
@Axel:
May i import + upload the next version of wicd (which is 1.7.5, i think)?
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/wicd.html
says, the package building has failed, because of "dpkg-source:
additionally: is it harmful for users/debian/wicd/whatever, when i work
at a particular problem regarding the wicd package with a delay of 2,3,4
weeks?
i mean, of course i intend to work regularly(=at least every week) on
wicd, but just to be sure..^^
On 01/26/2016 01:44 PM, toogley wrote
https://github.com/toogley/pkg-wicd/commit/b2931ca51f831369ec2854b20b523ba9db42546a
On 01/17/2016 06:06 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
Hi,
toogley wrote:
On 01/17/2016 04:32 PM, toogley wrote:
What do you mean by "uploaded packages" ? the upstream release (on
launchpad)?
N
Hey,
thanks. Additionally, i've found https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/wicd
which is fairly useful.
On 01/17/2016 02:40 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
Hi,
generally speaking, what can i do in maintaining the wicd package, exept
fixing bugs (e.g. also the todo bug listed in the changelog)
Hey,
The commit ff299c3 has merged the upstream version 1.7.3 into master,
but https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/wicd says, we still need to merge it
in. What is wrong here? Do i missunderstand sth?
What do you mean by "uploaded packages" ? the upstream release (on
launchpad)?
On 01/17/2016 04:26 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
Hi,
toogley wrote:
The commit ff299c3 has merged the upstream version 1.7.3 into
master, but https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/wicd says, we still need
to merge i
Ah, sry. I missunderstood you. You mean it's not in unstable yet and
therefore it complains.
On 01/17/2016 04:32 PM, toogley wrote:
What do you mean by "uploaded packages" ? the upstream release (on
launchpad)?
On 01/17/2016 04:26 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
Hi,
toogley wrote:
why has the debian/patches dir in stretch more patches than in master,
since the master branch is merged into stretch?
On 01/17/2016 04:26 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
Hi,
toogley wrote:
The commit ff299c3 has merged the upstream version 1.7.3 into
master, but https://tracker.debian.org/pkg
thanks.
May i delete the nmu, stretch, debconf branch and rename the stable
branch to squeeze? (deleting nmu and stretch was suggested by mapreri on
IRC)
If so, should i do that on my github or directly in the alioth git?
On 01/17/2016 06:06 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
Hi,
toogley wrote:
why
Not sure. The translators seem active:
https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~wicd-devel/wicd/experimental/changes/954?start_revid=954
There seems no code change since March anymore. But that's less than a
year ago, so it's hard to say.
well, i have to admit i haven't checked the activity before
).
==> i wanted to make my changes explicit, as it may be not obvious that
i ran debconf-updatep. But,well here is the updated version.
https://github.com/toogley/pkg-wicd/commit/d2532c3a2a7cb0fe31f970f829a301205ef0f19d
(And btw: i didn't use git revert here, because no one has pulled yet
from
Hey,
generally speaking, what can i do in maintaining the wicd package, exept
fixing bugs (e.g. also the todo bug listed in the changelog) and
uploading new upstream versions?
Hey,
my first commit:
https://github.com/toogley/pkg-wicd/commit/4ade5ad71c1c50be9cd3748742042ff34a428fb1
==> Can you give me feedback, please? :)
why do you say the "main development" is done in master, and not in
stretch, as stretch is merged into stable after a while?
On 01/15/2016 08:00 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
orig tarball doesn't have the same source anymore,
Could you please explain that?
On 01/15/2016 06:20 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
(look e.g. to virtualbox-ext-package source package, where I run
debconf-updatepo in clean target, just to
avoid such situations :) )
What file/commit/whatever are you referring to? I couldn't found sth
related in your git logs.
commit, doesn't that lead to a confusing git history, as my
commit was not correct?
Thanks again,
toogley
oh, i've just overlooked that part of your explanation regarding the
master/sid branch...
On 01/15/2016 07:33 PM, toogley wrote:
Hi Gianfranco, Hi Axel,
So, the master branch represents sid in the wicd repo?
sry for the missunderstanding^^
> since you changed something in deb
error: upstream/1.7.3 is not a valid treeish"
which doesn't make sense to me, as we obviously have a debian dir in the
master branch. (I'm refering to
http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/167565/117978)
Di you have an idea i could try?
What about those two commits?
https://github.com/too
On 01/15/2016 08:00 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
The main issue is when you commit something in the source directory, then the
orig tarball doesn't have the same source anymore, and you have
dpkg-buildpackage
fail because of modified source.
But i haven't commited in the source
On 01/15/2016 10:36 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
Only one small thing to nitpick: Usually the changelog items are added
at the bottom of the current entry. They may be grouped by
contributor, though, i.e. adding new items at the end of your item
group as you did here:
>https://github.com/toog
he package when committing new patches or
changes - but obviously you diddn't added them (at least not that bunch
of files in the pastie).
Why? Or did i sth wrong?
@wookey: I'll use "gbp import-orig"; it seams to be a more seamless
integration.
Thanks :)
On 01/07/2016 08:17 PM, A
I don't mind - the rest of your email, i'll answer in the next days.
again, thank you :)
On 01/09/2016 03:57 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
P.S. to Toogley: I might do a short-term QA upload of 1.7.3 to Debian
Unstable with what is currently in the master branch if the TODO in
debian/changelog has
estimate if that's a critical problem or if I'm suitable for
maintaining such a popular package. Of course I'll do my best.
==> So, what do you guys think about that?
regards,
toogley
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:27:13 +0200 Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org> wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
H
40 matches
Mail list logo
