On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:48 PM, Stéphane Graber wrote:
I push those commits to the main branch (ubuntu:package) as I go.
It's true that the head of the branch doesn't reflect the source
package, however the latest tag does, so that's not a real concern.
What I like is that when I have a few simple
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
I did quite a few bzr merge proposals.
The workflow I used was this:
bzr branch lp:~logan/ubuntu/raring/rbbr/0.6.0-6
cd 0.6.0-6
bzr bd -S
sbuild ../build-area/*.dsc
bzr diff -rtag:last-ubuntu | filterdiff -x .pc*
bzr diff -rtag:last-debian
On Dec 03, 2012, at 09:56 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 06:14:19PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:07:47PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think we should (almost) never allow users to push to ubuntu: or
debianlp:
branches, or at least, highly
pykde4 is currently failing:
http://package-import.ubuntu.com/status/pykde4.html#2012-11-22 08:40:00.891722
I'd like to learn how to fix this in such a way that I can add some
suggestions to
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/UnderTheHood/Importer/CommonFailures
This way, folks can
On Dec 03, 2012, at 03:04 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:07:47PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think we should (almost) never allow users to push to ubuntu: or debianlp:
branches, or at least, highly discourage it. Just do the upload and let the
importer create the new
On Jun 13, 2012, at 05:25 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
I heavily rely on package-import. It's no longer 'a demo' but really the only
way I develop for ubuntu or debian (to have a nice debdiff).
Here, here.
-Barry
--
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Today I wanted to work on the apport packaging branch, but the importer has
been failing on this package:
http://package-import.ubuntu.com/status/apport.html#2012-01-26 06:59:16.573850
I took a look at bug 494481, which is referenced by the importer failure
package, but I didn't see anything
Now that Quantal is open for development, what do we need to do to get things
switched over, and UDD all happy-like?
$ bzr branch ubuntu:precise/debootstrap precise
bzr: ERROR: Revision
{package-imp...@ubuntu.com-2021132053-gkdptiozkkmpd7p4} not present in
On Apr 13, 2012, at 01:13 AM, Max Bowsher wrote:
I've just had a conversation with cjwatson and slangasek on
#ubuntu-release about the importer making a nuisance of itself by
declaring a perfectly reasonable commit to be a collision / difference,
and replacing it with one of its own.
The key
I just want to put this out there for the historical record. I think this is
a rare enough use case that UDD doesn't need to address, certainly not any
time soon, if ever. OTOH, maybe there's an easy workaround.
I was working on an NBS for the fgfs-atlas package (LP: #903225). The
solution was
On Feb 15, 2012, at 04:35 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
bzr merge-upstream should help here. You can pass it a tarball and a
version. Of course, these will have to be different than the previous
release (since it's a new upstream version). In your case, I would imagine
something like:
$ cvs export
On Feb 01, 2012, at 02:10 PM, Martin Pool wrote:
I think messages like yours might as well be sent to say ubuntu-devel-discuss
(too).
Good idea. I'll send an announcement when the new pages are published.
Thanks for the review; I'm going to merge the branch now and then dpm will
publish the
On Jan 19, 2012, at 01:30 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
We've done some testing of it, as well as running through a package merge
involving patches with Barry, but none of us do package merges regularly. If
you do run into issues or if you think there are ways we can improve the
quilt handling
On Nov 09, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Martin Packman wrote:
Sticking any funky branches like this up somewhere may be useful for
later reference.
See if lp:~barry/ubuntu/precise/claws-mail/udd helps
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
+ package
+- Drop libboost1.46-all-dev and provide from boost-mpi-source1.46
+- Adjust debian/rules and debian/control
+
+ -- Barry Warsaw ba...@ubuntu.com Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:56:45 -0400
+
+boost1.46 (1.46.1-7) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * control: Fix ungrammatical description for iostreams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Oct 04, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
I think Jonathan means that if you use -nc (no cleanup of build
directory), you have to cd ../build-area/mypkg-1.0 to get to the build
directory.
Since I usually use sbuild or pbuilder directly
On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:42 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
On 09/22/2011 05:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
It would certainly be more useful to have ubuntu:gtimelog share history
with lp:gtimelog, but I think it would be best in that case if
ubuntu:gtimelog only version controlled the debian directory
On Sep 22, 2011, at 07:08 PM, Martin Pool wrote:
lp:indicator-power is one example, and the desktop team actually
maintain an unofficial packaging branch that does share history:
lp:~ubuntu-desktop/indicator-power/ubuntu
At the moment, gtimelog is another. What I've done recently is to first do
Apologies for the delayed response. Note that we ended up not meeting on
Wednesday because it was only Jelmer and myself. ;) Maybe the thing to do is
to suspend the meetings until we have a clear agenda for them moving forward.
Note that I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing! While
At our last meeting, we talked about starting up the UDD bi-weekly meetings
again this week (Wednesday Sept 7 @ 1100 UTC). However, both Martin and I are
pretty tired of the old format, so let's think about how we can restructure
the meeting to be most effective for everyone. If we really don't
New minutes are posted for the last two UDD stakeholder meetings:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/20110713
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/20110727
Also, because of typical (northern hemisphere) summer vacation schedules,
we're suspending the meetings through
On Jul 18, 2011, at 10:17 PM, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
I have a branch in PQM now that adds a version check whenever you access
a Launchpad packaging branch (http://pad.lv/609187). I have the feeling
there is still a bit of polish needed, but I would like to get some
feedback from people
On Jul 14, 2011, at 05:26 PM, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
I've been looking over the packaging guide for what needs done to it and
issues with UDD it reveals.
Thanks very much for your great work on this Jonathan. Daniel asked me to
review your branches, which I did, although one of them needs an
Please note the following time change:
At least for the rest of the northern summer, we're bumping the UDD meetings
up by one hour. They will now be held at 1200 UTC.
See you on 13-July.
Cheers,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
There was a discussion today on #ubuntu-devel about some changes I'd made to a
few packages for bug 788514 (switch to dh_python2). gedit is a good
representative example of the basic issue.
What I did was to `bzr branch ubuntu:gedit`, then make the changes to that
branch, `bzr bd -S`, and dput
On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Scott Moser wrote:
I am the cause of the euca2ools import failure
http://package-import.ubuntu.com/status/euca2ools.html .
I'd like to have all the lp:ubuntu/suite/euca2ools branches up to
date. I really like the functionality that udd provides, but have
On Jun 03, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
From what I understand, there are people doing things all sorts of ways with
quilt, and I really don't want to have to learn all the ways people are using
quilt with bzr and try to figure out *which* way any particular package is
using that
On May 20, 2011, at 05:33 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 11:46 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
A couple of quick notes on UDD documentation.
At UDS-O, we agreed that the current wiki documentation should be deleted,
with pointers added to Daniel's Ubuntu Packaging Guide. Even
On Apr 14, 2011, at 03:29 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
the bzr-builddeb in natty can use the watch file. If you have a watch
file it will use the watch file to download the upstream release.
The --version argument is also optional if you have a watch file; it
will default to the latest
On Apr 14, 2011, at 03:51 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'll do that. The wiki is semi-obsolete. As soon as the new Ubuntu packaging
guide gets a URL, I'll be removing the wiki pages and pointing to it (which
contains the latest content, and which I'll also update).
Looks like Jelmer already did \o
On Apr 11, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
We could do that. I actually usually do bzr bd -S first, and only
debcommit -r once that was successful, but I can just ignore the
warning :)
I usually do things this way too.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
On Apr 13, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Martin Pool wrote:
On 13 April 2011 01:24, Barry Warsaw ba...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Martin, I think you own the gcal event. Can you make the change so that
we're meeting at 1100 UTC for the next meeting (20-Apr)?
OK, done, that's next Wednesday: morning in the US
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Apr 12, 2011, at 01:29 PM, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
1100 UTC is excellent for me :). 2100UTC is about 11pm for me, which is
possible, but a bit unlikely. My family is certainly usually asleep
before 10, but lately so am I.
If there are no
On Mar 26, 2011, at 09:10 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
We have in the past fallen into a trap of aiming for 100% in each step
*before* we move onto the next one. That means we're well past the
point of getting a net benefit (think 80-20 rule) by the time we start
moving on. These import problems
On Feb 24, 2011, at 06:11 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
The meetings have been at 10 CET here, so it's not quite as late as
midnight, but it is well past the work day.
The meetings are at 1600 EST so I could easily go earlier, though I'm often
slammed with meetings on Wednesdays until about 1200
On Feb 09, 2011, at 07:57 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
meaning all patches are already applied in the source branch.
-1
You can maintain the property as well by adding a hook that applies the
patches at checkout time. (Even that hook is not strictly necessary, as
debuild will automatically apply
On Feb 08, 2011, at 06:00 PM, Martin Pool wrote:
At the moment it seems to me we need to either: import to looms and
mandate using looms; or check in things with everything expanded and
provide glue that will keep the quilt data up to date with the wt.
(Perhaps they should be considered derived
On Feb 08, 2011, at 02:23 PM, Max Bowsher wrote:
I think we should go ahead and change the package importer _now_ to
revert to importing 3.0 (quilt) source packages with patches *not*
applied. When it does so, it should probably write a
debian/source/local-options file containing unapply-patches.
Minutes of the UDD stakeholders meeting 2011-01-26 2100 UTC are now available
here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/20110126
There's been lots of excellent progress, so please do read the page. And
remember, all are welcome to join us in #ubuntu-meeting.
-Barry
signature.asc
We have 'bzr commit' and we have 'debcommit'. Currently, the UDD guidelines
talk about both, but for consistency, I'd like to standardize on recommending
'bzr commit'. One feature that debcommit has:
DEBCOMMIT(1) DEBCOMMIT(1)
NAME
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/20101201
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Hi Martin, thanks for posting this update, and apologies for taking so long to
get around to reading it.
On Nov 17, 2010, at 08:06 PM, Martin Pool wrote:
At the end of that discussion we picked two specific items for the bzr team:
* speed
* loom support, on lp and within bzr, and connecting
First of all, thanks Martin for conducting the poll and collating the
results. It'll be an interesting baseline to compare against at future
UDS's.
On Nov 18, 2010, at 06:23 PM, Martin Pool wrote:
Bottom line:
*Heaps* to do, but some encouraging feedback. The priorities I draw
from this are
Oh, sorry, one other thing. Would it be useful to link to the survey results
and your summary from
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment
?
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify
On Nov 05, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Max Bowsher wrote:
Either people should not remove it (and furthermore keep it up to date)
or the UDD importer ought to not place it in the branches in the first
place.
Probably both!
It's probably good practice to revert any changes to the .pc directory that
might
The minutes of this week's UDD stakeholders meeting is now available:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/20101103
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
So, I made a patch against ubuntu:python-distutils-extra and submitted a merge
proposal.
https://code.launchpad.net/~barry/ubuntu/natty/python-distutils-extra/670188-ftbfs/+merge/39993
A few interesting things happened. As part of my branch, I removed the .pc
directory from bzr. IIUC, that
Minutes from the yesterday's UDD stakeholders meeting are now available:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/20101020
Don't forget to that we have three sessions scheduled for UDS-N. Looking
forward to seeing you there.
Cheers,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Oct 05, 2010, at 09:16 AM, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
I've been thinking about it, and I'm pretty confident that what you are
trying to do is inherently criss-cross. Specifically consider a
semi-ideal case:
This is all fascinating, and while I have nothing constructive to add, I
wonder: does
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Oct 05, 2010, at 09:37 AM, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
Now, I would imagine that the *interesting* merges are not clean like
this. Why would you really care about merging if debian isn't adding
patches to the upstream code? (Other than
On Jul 13, 2010, at 04:20 PM, Elliot Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@canonical.com wro
but it seems to have some advantages for the way I work.
This is cool, thanks for 'splaining.
Thanks to you too. It's great to get another perspective on things.
Yes
On May 28, 2010, at 05:17 PM, James Westby wrote:
All the threads disappeared when the branch was pulled to machine heresy.
Maybe Launchpad doesn't support looms yet? Maybe the stacking is messing
things up? Any other suggestions or comments?
No idea, sorry. Have you filed a bug for
Computer Janitor is my poster child for the UDD use case where the upstream is
also the packaging branch. lp:computer-janitor has the debian/ directory in
it but that's unsatisfying for several reasons. So I wanted to experiment
with using a loom to manage several threads (from bottom to top):
On Feb 11, 2010, at 02:57 AM, James Westby wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:33:27 +1100, Martin Pool m...@canonical.com wrote:
I'd like to let looms progress, but not (unless james or others feel
differently) add them into the dependency chain for getting UDD going.
No, we don't have to add it to
On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Michael Hudson wrote:
This can probably be arranged, I guess. File a bug. Patches likely
welcome :-)
For now: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-code/+bug/509901
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list
On Jan 17, 2010, at 10:45 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I spent some time over the holidays giving merging via bzr and the UDD tools.
I understand that development of the tools to support this is still a work in
progress and the much of this feedback probably represents work that you
already know
On Jan 17, 2010, at 10:45 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I spent some time over the holidays giving merging via bzr and the UDD tools.
I understand that development of the tools to support this is still a work in
progress and the much of this feedback probably represents work that you
already know
On Dec 11, 2009, at 05:12 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think I've actually patched my first Ubuntu package, with much thanks to
Colin and James W for their help. Having done this from essentially no
knowledge of how to do it, and no experience with the tools, James suggested I
email this list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Resurrecting a thread from a few weeks ago...
On Dec 17, 2009, at 01:26 PM, Aaron Bentley wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I like this because there are
no extra directories to worry about, and I can delete the loom
directory in one rm-rf
On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Aaron Bentley wrote:
There are a lot of similarities. Some more differences are:
- - automatic storing/restoring of uncommitted changes with switch-pipe.
- - uncommitted changes in another pipe can be merged.
These are very definitely advantages of pipes.
I
On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:15 AM, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
I would mention that for packaging, I think you really do want to have
'upstream' as the first thread, which doesn't work with the pipeline
model, since a given branch can only participate in one pipeline.
Not just for packaging. When I'm
On Dec 16, 2009, at 01:28 PM, Aaron Bentley wrote:
With looms, you get a huge proliferation of threads. I think the only
real difference is that threads tend to be less visible than branches.
For me, that was a big difference and one of the reasons I currently favor
looms over pipelines. We
Hi all,
I think I've actually patched my first Ubuntu package, with much thanks to
Colin and James W for their help. Having done this from essentially no
knowledge of how to do it, and no experience with the tools, James suggested I
email this list with some feedback and suggestions. Remember,
63 matches
Mail list logo
