Re: [SCM] supercollider/master: Fix upstream tarball download
2012/6/25 Felipe Sateler fsate...@debian.org: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:23pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:14pm, fsate...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: We are using a + for the dfsg delimiter Why? This is a new upstream release, so no need to use newer-than. Benefit of using older-than for repackaging is that there is a (small) chance upstream will decide to rerelease _same_ upstream version with a cleaned up tarball. I'm not particularly attached to the + symbol. Since I was indifferent, I decided to fix rules file for the existing practice than change the practice and not touch the rules file. You mean practice of packages like jackd2, or...? Supercollider itself. Dan had already uploaded a +dfsg version to the git repository. Is it perhaps the royal we? ;-) Fortunately, no, at least one other was involved in the 'we' :p Yes, it was my misunderstanding of the convention. We would like to accept a change to the tilde convention, thank you very much. I take it it's still OK to change this in git since it's unreleased. Dan ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] supercollider/master: Fix upstream tarball download
On 12-06-24 at 08:06pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:23pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:14pm, fsate...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: We are using a + for the dfsg delimiter Why? This is a new upstream release, so no need to use newer-than. Benefit of using older-than for repackaging is that there is a (small) chance upstream will decide to rerelease _same_ upstream version with a cleaned up tarball. I'm not particularly attached to the + symbol. Since I was indifferent, I decided to fix rules file for the existing practice than change the practice and not touch the rules file. You mean practice of packages like jackd2, or...? Supercollider itself. Dan had already uploaded a +dfsg version to the git repository. Ohh, now I get it: You don't argue that it is a style we as team commonly use across all our packages, but merely than one of us three working on this *one* package has *once*, 16 minutes earlier, done it. That's what you call existing practice. Sorry for being dense. @Ben: How did you make that tarball which you re-imported? Clearly you didn't use the CDBS routines as you'd not told CDBS to use + as delimiter. I recommend that you use the very method of recreating tarball that you document in README.source. Since the packaging has not yet been released officially into Debian, there is still time to change to a better style with no harm or other complications involved. I recommend that you do so, Ben. Importing a newly generated, differently named tarball containing same content should only be a tiny commit, thanks to how git-buildpackage is designed. :-) Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] supercollider/master: Fix upstream tarball download
2012/6/25 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk: On 12-06-24 at 08:06pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:23pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:14pm, fsate...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: We are using a + for the dfsg delimiter Why? This is a new upstream release, so no need to use newer-than. Benefit of using older-than for repackaging is that there is a (small) chance upstream will decide to rerelease _same_ upstream version with a cleaned up tarball. I'm not particularly attached to the + symbol. Since I was indifferent, I decided to fix rules file for the existing practice than change the practice and not touch the rules file. You mean practice of packages like jackd2, or...? Supercollider itself. Dan had already uploaded a +dfsg version to the git repository. Ohh, now I get it: You don't argue that it is a style we as team commonly use across all our packages, but merely than one of us three working on this *one* package has *once*, 16 minutes earlier, done it. That's what you call existing practice. Sorry for being dense. Personally I find this sarcasm rather unpleasant, even though it's not aimed at me. Lots of debian packages use +dfsg so I don't see why the issue is so unambiguous as your sarcasm would imply. (Since I'm not a full member of this group I might be unaware of some prior discussion I guess.) @Dan: How did you make that tarball which you re-imported? Clearly you didn't use the CDBS routines as you'd not told CDBS to use + as delimiter. I recommend that you use the very method of recreating tarball that you document in README.source. Correct, I did it manually. The reason was that, since the 3.5.3 source had already been imported un-stripped, I had expected that the CDBS tools wouldn't be appropriate this time but should be used in future. I think I was wrong about that. Since the packaging has not yet been released officially into Debian, there is still time to change to a better style with no harm or other complications involved. I recommend that you do so, Dan. No problem, I'll do this, as long as we're all agreed :) One question: if a package foo-6.4 was released un-stripped, and then later was stripped for DFSG reasons, it would have to be foo-6.4+dfsg rather than foo-6.4~dfsg wouldn't it? I guess that's a different situation. Thanks Dan Importing a newly generated, differently named tarball containing same content should only be a tiny commit, thanks to how git-buildpackage is designed. :-) Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] supercollider/master: Fix upstream tarball download
On 12-06-25 at 09:17am, Dan S wrote: 2012/6/25 Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk: On 12-06-24 at 08:06pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:23pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:14pm, fsate...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: We are using a + for the dfsg delimiter Why? This is a new upstream release, so no need to use newer-than. Benefit of using older-than for repackaging is that there is a (small) chance upstream will decide to rerelease _same_ upstream version with a cleaned up tarball. I'm not particularly attached to the + symbol. Since I was indifferent, I decided to fix rules file for the existing practice than change the practice and not touch the rules file. You mean practice of packages like jackd2, or...? Supercollider itself. Dan had already uploaded a +dfsg version to the git repository. Ohh, now I get it: You don't argue that it is a style we as team commonly use across all our packages, but merely than one of us three working on this *one* package has *once*, 16 minutes earlier, done it. That's what you call existing practice. Sorry for being dense. Personally I find this sarcasm rather unpleasant, even though it's not aimed at me. Lots of debian packages use +dfsg so I don't see why the issue is so unambiguous as your sarcasm would imply. (Since I'm not a full member of this group I might be unaware of some prior discussion I guess.) You are right, I shouldn't use sarcasm. That never helps. @Dan: How did you make that tarball which you re-imported? Clearly you didn't use the CDBS routines as you'd not told CDBS to use + as delimiter. I recommend that you use the very method of recreating tarball that you document in README.source. Correct, I did it manually. The reason was that, since the 3.5.3 source had already been imported un-stripped, I had expected that the CDBS tools wouldn't be appropriate this time but should be used in future. I think I was wrong about that. Yeah, I guess so too (can't think of a reason CDBS approach wouldn't work this time around too). Since the packaging has not yet been released officially into Debian, there is still time to change to a better style with no harm or other complications involved. I recommend that you do so, Dan. No problem, I'll do this, as long as we're all agreed :) I am not sure we all agree in the sense that any of us would do it ourselves. But it is my impression that we all agree that it is ok to do it if someone (i.e. you or me) wants to. One question: if a package foo-6.4 was released un-stripped, and then later was stripped for DFSG reasons, it would have to be foo-6.4+dfsg rather than foo-6.4~dfsg wouldn't it? I guess that's a different situation. Correct. It makes sense to use + sometimes. My point is that it makes sense to favor ~ over + when both are possible. And that it is worth the (slight) extra hassle of changing as long as the packaging has not yet been officially released. ...and as I understand it, Felipe disagrees with that last part. And I got annoied by that, so much that I threw sarcasm - but I should've controlled my temper as a) it is perfectly ok to be lazy rather than strive for perfection, and b) it is not my job to dictate what others should do. Sorry, Felipe! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] supercollider/master: Fix upstream tarball download
On 12-06-24 at 06:14pm, fsate...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: We are using a + for the dfsg delimiter Why? This is a new upstream release, so no need to use newer-than. Benefit of using older-than for repackaging is that there is a (small) chance upstream will decide to rerelease _same_ upstream version with a cleaned up tarball. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] supercollider/master: Fix upstream tarball download
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:14pm, fsate...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: We are using a + for the dfsg delimiter Why? This is a new upstream release, so no need to use newer-than. Benefit of using older-than for repackaging is that there is a (small) chance upstream will decide to rerelease _same_ upstream version with a cleaned up tarball. I'm not particularly attached to the + symbol. Since I was indifferent, I decided to fix rules file for the existing practice than change the practice and not touch the rules file. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] supercollider/master: Fix upstream tarball download
On 12-06-24 at 06:23pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:14pm, fsate...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: We are using a + for the dfsg delimiter Why? This is a new upstream release, so no need to use newer-than. Benefit of using older-than for repackaging is that there is a (small) chance upstream will decide to rerelease _same_ upstream version with a cleaned up tarball. I'm not particularly attached to the + symbol. Since I was indifferent, I decided to fix rules file for the existing practice than change the practice and not touch the rules file. You mean practice of packages like jackd2, or...? Is it perhaps the royal we? ;-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] supercollider/master: Fix upstream tarball download
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:23pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-06-24 at 06:14pm, fsate...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote: We are using a + for the dfsg delimiter Why? This is a new upstream release, so no need to use newer-than. Benefit of using older-than for repackaging is that there is a (small) chance upstream will decide to rerelease _same_ upstream version with a cleaned up tarball. I'm not particularly attached to the + symbol. Since I was indifferent, I decided to fix rules file for the existing practice than change the practice and not touch the rules file. You mean practice of packages like jackd2, or...? Supercollider itself. Dan had already uploaded a +dfsg version to the git repository. Is it perhaps the royal we? ;-) Fortunately, no, at least one other was involved in the 'we' :p -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
