Re: packaging policy (was: debian/source/format for LiVES)
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 07:10:52PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: Let's recommend dh7 and make it mandatory for new packages. We should let the uploader decide, when it's the right time to switch from CDBS to dh7. Why, if I may ask? dh7 is not a successor for CDBS. Kind 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/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: packaging policy (was: debian/source/format for LiVES)
Am Sonntag, den 25.04.2010, 19:00 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 06:44:19PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: > >Let's discuss a packaging policy for our team. My favorite would be dh7 > >and dpkg-source 3.0 format. We shouldn't enforce the switch to > >dpkg-source 3.0 right now. Instead we should switch once the uploader > >thinks that the tools are ready for 3.0. > > > >Other opinions? > > I agree to make source format switch optional for now. > > But I propose to also make optional the choice of either CDBS or > short-form dh7. > > If short-form dh7 becomes mandatory, I will leave the team. This is not > meant as a thread (although the net result is somewhat the same), but > selfish lazyness: I use CDBS for all 100+ packages that I am involved in > maintaining officially for Debian. Let's recommend dh7 and make it mandatory for new packages. We should let the uploader decide, when it's the right time to switch from CDBS to dh7. I have some CDBS packages too and there is no reason for changing a properly working debian/rules just because of the change. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: packaging policy (was: debian/source/format for LiVES)
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 06:44:19PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: Let's discuss a packaging policy for our team. My favorite would be dh7 and dpkg-source 3.0 format. We shouldn't enforce the switch to dpkg-source 3.0 right now. Instead we should switch once the uploader thinks that the tools are ready for 3.0. Other opinions? I agree to make source format switch optional for now. But I propose to also make optional the choice of either CDBS or short-form dh7. If short-form dh7 becomes mandatory, I will leave the team. This is not meant as a thread (although the net result is somewhat the same), but selfish lazyness: I use CDBS for all 100+ packages that I am involved in maintaining officially for Debian. Kind 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/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: packaging policy (was: debian/source/format for LiVES)
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote: > My favorite would be dh7 and dpkg-source 3.0 format. It's also my favorite one. > We shouldn't enforce the switch to dpkg-source 3.0 right now. > Instead we should switch once the uploader thinks that the > tools are ready for 3.0. I totally agree. -- Alessio Treglia Ubuntu MOTU Developer | Homepage: http://www.alessiotreglia.com 0FEC 59A5 E18E E04F 6D40 593B 45D4 8C7C DCFC 3FD0 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
packaging policy (was: debian/source/format for LiVES)
Am Sonntag, den 25.04.2010, 09:27 +0200 schrieb Reinhard Tartler: > On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 23:05:29 (CEST), Harry Rickards wrote: > > > There is a lintian warning with lives - missing-debian-source-format. > > This is fixed by adding a debian/source/format. Should I put '1.0' in > > the file or put '3.0 (quilt)' and switch to 3.0. Does this just > > involve removing the '--with-quilt' from debian/rules, removing the > > build depend on quilt and removing README.source? > > this has been recently discussed on this list, mainly between jonas and > me. Jonas was a strong proponent of format 3.0, while I think > git-buildpackage is not ready (enough) for it. > > As a compromise, Jonas proposed to unpatch in the 'clean' rules such that > a 'debclean' returns the working copy to a state that is ready to be > examined with 'git status'/'git commit' commands. > > While I can live with this compromise, I'm not very fond of having > different sets of packages with different packaging policies under our > team umbrella. We currently have some packages in dh6-style, some in > dh7, some in cdbs, and this format discussion is adding yet another > dimension of variability. So if we agree on moving to format 3.0, I > think we should properly document this and convert all packages > gradually. Let's discuss a packaging policy for our team. My favorite would be dh7 and dpkg-source 3.0 format. We shouldn't enforce the switch to dpkg-source 3.0 right now. Instead we should switch once the uploader thinks that the tools are ready for 3.0. Other opinions? -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: debian/source/format for LiVES
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:14:50 (CEST), Harry Rickards wrote: > I'll just put format 1.0 for the moment then, if that's agreeable with > everyone. Yes, until we decide to convert all packages to format 3.0, I think that's a safe bet, at least for now. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: debian/source/format for LiVES
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Harry Rickards wrote: > I'll just put format 1.0 for the moment then, if that's agreeable with > everyone. > It's fine for me. -- Alessio Treglia Ubuntu MOTU Developer | Homepage: http://www.alessiotreglia.com 0FEC 59A5 E18E E04F 6D40 593B 45D4 8C7C DCFC 3FD0 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: debian/source/format for LiVES
On 25 April 2010 08:27, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 23:05:29 (CEST), Harry Rickards wrote: > >> There is a lintian warning with lives - missing-debian-source-format. >> This is fixed by adding a debian/source/format. Should I put '1.0' in >> the file or put '3.0 (quilt)' and switch to 3.0. Does this just >> involve removing the '--with-quilt' from debian/rules, removing the >> build depend on quilt and removing README.source? > > this has been recently discussed on this list, mainly between jonas and > me. Jonas was a strong proponent of format 3.0, while I think > git-buildpackage is not ready (enough) for it. > > As a compromise, Jonas proposed to unpatch in the 'clean' rules such that > a 'debclean' returns the working copy to a state that is ready to be > examined with 'git status'/'git commit' commands. > > While I can live with this compromise, I'm not very fond of having > different sets of packages with different packaging policies under our > team umbrella. We currently have some packages in dh6-style, some in > dh7, some in cdbs, and this format discussion is adding yet another > dimension of variability. So if we agree on moving to format 3.0, I > think we should properly document this and convert all packages > gradually. > I'll just put format 1.0 for the moment then, if that's agreeable with everyone. -- Harry Rickards - ha...@linux.com Vote Lib Dem - Building a fairer Britain - http://libdems.org.uk ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: debian/source/format for LiVES
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 23:05:29 (CEST), Harry Rickards wrote: > There is a lintian warning with lives - missing-debian-source-format. > This is fixed by adding a debian/source/format. Should I put '1.0' in > the file or put '3.0 (quilt)' and switch to 3.0. Does this just > involve removing the '--with-quilt' from debian/rules, removing the > build depend on quilt and removing README.source? this has been recently discussed on this list, mainly between jonas and me. Jonas was a strong proponent of format 3.0, while I think git-buildpackage is not ready (enough) for it. As a compromise, Jonas proposed to unpatch in the 'clean' rules such that a 'debclean' returns the working copy to a state that is ready to be examined with 'git status'/'git commit' commands. While I can live with this compromise, I'm not very fond of having different sets of packages with different packaging policies under our team umbrella. We currently have some packages in dh6-style, some in dh7, some in cdbs, and this format discussion is adding yet another dimension of variability. So if we agree on moving to format 3.0, I think we should properly document this and convert all packages gradually. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
debian/source/format for LiVES
Hi, There is a lintian warning with lives - missing-debian-source-format. This is fixed by adding a debian/source/format. Should I put '1.0' in the file or put '3.0 (quilt)' and switch to 3.0. Does this just involve removing the '--with-quilt' from debian/rules, removing the build depend on quilt and removing README.source? Thanks -- Harry Rickards - ha...@linux.com Vote Lib Dem - Building a fairer Britain - http://libdems.org.uk ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
