at it?
cheers
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org
GPG fingerprintBE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8
GPG fingerprint90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB
TagFile is actually worth it for them.
We'd be able to solve at least #750247 and #743174 by doing this.
Comments welcome!
cheers
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org
GPG
Hi John,
thanks for your feedback -- I've updated the git repo accordingly in case
there are further comments from anyone.
cheers
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org
GPG
much of the removals information should be parsed into classes,
that's always up for debate and opinions are welcome.
cheers
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org
GPG fingerprint
likely that such changelog entries exist.
Applied in git -- thanks!
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org
GPG fingerprint90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
--
Hi Jakub,
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:34:19 Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Stuart Prescott <stu...@debian.org>, 2016-06-15, 00:02:
> >+@property
> >+def date(self):
> >+""" a datetime object for the removal action """
> >
or pbuilder. (This is clearly a bug in the build system; perhaps we
should be caring more for these files anyway?)
cheers
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org
GPG fingerprint
Control: tags -1 - wontfix
There's a difference between "there is nothing to fix in the package" and "the
maintainer won't fix it". If you think this is something that can be fixed in
the package, please submit a patch and I'll gladly incorporate it.
--
Stu
16060
[GNUPG:] KEY_CONSIDERED 90E2D2C1AD146A1B7EBB891DBBC17EBB1396F2F7 0
[GNUPG:] GOODSIG BBC17EBB1396F2F7 Stuart Prescott <stu...@nanonanonano.net>
gpgv: Good signature from "Stuart Prescott <stu...@nanonanonano.net>"
gpgv: aka "Stuart Prescott <stu
("FDs %d" % len(glob.glob("/proc/self/fd/*")))
would help us spot an fd leak.)
thanks!
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org
GPG fingerprint90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B
is given.
I don't think it's appropriate to change the semantics of compare_versions();
I think it's doing the right thing in raising an exception. My current
intention is to reassign this bug back to reportbug -- do you agree?
cheers
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.n
Control: reassign -1 reportbug
As promised, reassigning back to reportbug since it is failing to use
compare_versions() correctly.
(quoting the full mail below since it didn't get to the bug last time)
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 11:59:01 AEST Stuart Prescott wrote:
> Hi Sandro,
>
> &g
Control: tags 878434 + pending
Control: tags 878435 + pending
Thanks for your contributions -- the patches are applied to the git repo and
will be included in the next release.
cheers
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http
Source: python-debian
Version: 0.1.30
Severity: wishlist
Now that .buildinfo files are more common, it would be appropriate for a
standardised library to parse them to appear in python-debian.
This can mostly be a very thin layer around the existing Deb822 types, using
the existing Changes code
quite sensible to include in python-debian. I think
architecture information probably lives inside debian_support.py along with
types for versions and version comparison.
Could you please put this code and a (standalone) test suite in a form that
can be merged?
many thanks
Stuart
--
Stuart P
Hi Philipp,
> I just noticed that version 0.1.21 was not tagged in GIT.
now tagged -- thanks!
cheers
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org
GPG fingerprint90E2 D2C1 AD14 6
pen to discussion on that. There is perhaps
merit in using salsa for 'upstream' issues but I doubt having bugs in two
places is a good plan.
many thanks for doing this
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.
ian-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Stuart Prescott <stu...@debian.org>
Description:
python-debian - Python modules to work with Debian-related data formats
python3-debian - Python 3 modules to work with Debian-related data formats
Closes: 862058 878434 878435
Changes:
p
tes to the whole `Copyright` instance? Users would then
check that the file is valid after read in rather than using exception
handling.
comments, please! (Either to this bug or to the MR on salsa)
thanks
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Deb
.
>
> [1] <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/01/msg3.html>
Dear alioth list migration team,
please migrate the pkg-python-debian-maint list
many thanks
Stuart
(who appears to be last man standing)
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@n
the API docs to be meaningful at all while others are most
unwelcome.
Help needed!
> Is it worth putting these files into a new python-debian-doc binary package?
My feeling is that if the apidocs are useful enough to put on a website, they
are useful enough to put in a package.
cheers
Stua
he "blends" source package) for this subpackage,
> just installs a "blends.py" into ../dist-packages/debian/
>
> Since this is however somehow hijacking (part of) the namespace of
> python-debian, I'd like to know the policy here.
>
> Are there any problems with that
22 matches
Mail list logo
