On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 09:20:51 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, Guillem Jover wrote:
The only reason for that warning right now is to pester people into
either switching, which they should be doing out of their own
volition anyway because people think the new formats are
Le Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:35:04AM +0100, Colin Watson a écrit :
Having followed it up after last year's DebConf, I've been absolutely
sold on git-dpm, FWIW; I find it does a great job of making the patch
queue pleasant to maintain in a git-native style while providing a nice
easy-to-read
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:17:28AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Got it now. And I agree. It'd be awesome if we had something like:
quilt git-cherry-pick git-ref
which would do the work. Then it wouldn't be a problem.
git-dpm checkout-patched
git cherry-pick COMMIT
git commit --amend
Guillem Jover wrote:
Exactly. I don't have any intention to change the current dpkg-source
default behavior in that regard.
ACK.
But people who touch packages without d/s/format can just
write 1.0\n into it, to retain existing behaviour without
the warning. Still, changing the default is badâ¦
On 07/17/2014 02:29 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Thomas Goirand
On 07/15/2014 09:42 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
I am not a big fan of the 3.0 (quilt) format because it imposes a patch
system.
In particular, this format does not make much sense when managing the source
package with Git.
Hi Charles,
Quoting Charles Plessy (2014-07-16 02:58:58)
viewed from the opposite side of the chain, I have the impression that in
most cases where I receive a report that package X does not build on
architecture Y, it is a pure waste of time, since that package has no user
base on that
❦ 16 juillet 2014 09:58 +0900, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org :
Patch systems have a high importance in Debian because we accumulate patches
that have little relevance for Upstream and the software's users. One of the
solution is to standardise the patch systems, but another solution is to
Hi,
2014-07-16 3:36 GMT+02:00 Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org:
Hi!
[...]
Such warning might have made sense iff:
- the new formats had been uncontroversial,
There is no such thing as being uncontroversial in Debian. There is
always somebody nitpicking when gaining hundred features and
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, Guillem Jover wrote:
The only reason for that warning right now is to pester people into
either switching, which they should be doing out of their own
volition anyway because people think the new formats are really
superior and help them. Or so that people set it
]] Thomas Goirand
On 07/15/2014 09:42 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
I am not a big fan of the 3.0 (quilt) format because it imposes a patch
system.
In particular, this format does not make much sense when managing the source
package with Git.
I'm not sure I'm following you. I do use git
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
I can't speak for Plessy, but the entire concept of using a different,
much more limited patch system on top of git is just.. weird. It makes
absolutely no sense to dumb down all the rich metadata you have in your
git repository to something that's
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Steve,
I understand not wanting to repackage the upstream tarball for source format
1.0. What I don't understand is why you *did* do this, instead of just
switching the package to format 3.0 (quilt) as part of the
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
A proper lintian warning can enlighten the maintainer and push him
toward the change or somehow qualify the NMUer to add that file (if
there are no other big changes)
There's no reason to have a debian/source/format in a classic debian
package. The
Hi,
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
https://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0
Well, this is a one-sided view of the question from the creator of the 3.0
format, listing no disadvantages whatsoever.
Good. It's a wiki page, let's edit it. There is a
Advantages_of_new_formats
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
A proper lintian warning can enlighten the maintainer and push him
toward the change or somehow qualify the NMUer to add that file (if
there are no other big changes)
There's no reason to have a
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:43:05AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Can we have a reasonable discussion based on real arguments and not on
personal feelings?
I haven't read any personal feelings yet, apart from personal preferences about
how to handle patches.
It *is* a shame that the
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 15:26:28 Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:43:05AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Can we have a reasonable discussion based on real arguments and not on
personal feelings?
I haven't read any personal feelings yet, apart from personal preferences
On 07/15/2014 09:42 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
I am not a big fan of the 3.0 (quilt) format because it imposes a patch
system.
In particular, this format does not make much sense when managing the source
package with Git.
I'm not sure I'm following you. I do use git for packaging, and I have
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
[...]
It seems to me 3.0 (Quilt) is still applying patches when the
package is extracted using dpkg-source. Is there a way to avoid
that too? That's been my major objection.
dpkg-source -x --skip-patches foo.dsc
(Does not work in
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 18:12:41 Andreas Metzler wrote:
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
[...]
It seems to me 3.0 (Quilt) is still applying patches when the
package is extracted using dpkg-source. Is there a way to avoid
that too? That's been my major objection.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:28PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
It *is* a shame that the patch-handling aspect of 3.0 (Quilt) is offputting
enough to folks that some are avoiding 3.0 altogether and not benefitting from
the other improvements. However the single-debian-patch workaround is a
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:28PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
It *is* a shame that the patch-handling aspect of 3.0 (Quilt) is
offputting enough to folks that some are avoiding 3.0 altogether and
not benefitting from the other improvements.
Hi Scott,
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It seems to me 3.0 (Quilt) is still applying patches when the package is
extracted using dpkg-source. Is there a way to avoid that too? That's been
my major objection.
Can you elaborate on your objection?
Having patches applied by
Hi,
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
It *is* a shame that the patch-handling aspect of 3.0 (Quilt) is offputting
enough to folks that some are avoiding 3.0 altogether and not benefitting from
the other improvements. However the single-debian-patch workaround is a pretty
good
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 21:04:32 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi Scott,
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It seems to me 3.0 (Quilt) is still applying patches when the package is
extracted using dpkg-source. Is there a way to avoid that too? That's
been my major objection.
Can
On Jul 15, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 18:12:41 Andreas Metzler wrote:
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
[...]
It seems to me 3.0 (Quilt) is still applying patches when the
package is extracted using dpkg-source. Is there a way to avoid
On Jul 15, 2014, at 09:07 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
If quilt is the problem, aren't you more satisfied with tools like gbp-pq
that lets you avoid quilt and use (rebased) git branches to manage the
quilt series?
My one experience with this was not very successful, although I'm sure it was
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:53:10AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:28PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
It *is* a shame that the patch-handling aspect of 3.0 (Quilt) is
offputting enough to folks that some are avoiding 3.0
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It would be nice, however, to have a way to specify the alternate behavior in
a consistent reliable way (meaning something I can put in the package when I
add source/format).
Archive consistency is far more important than individual
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org wrote:
This would be far better solved with a system conffile of some sort
like /etc/dpkg/dpkg-source.cfg, which admittedly doesn't exist yet.
in general I feel the lack of a $HOME/.dpkg.conf conffile...
Luckily there are
2014-07-16 0:44 GMT+02:00 Mattia Rizzolo mat...@mapreri.org:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org wrote:
This would be far better solved with a system conffile of some sort
like /etc/dpkg/dpkg-source.cfg, which admittedly doesn't exist yet.
in general I feel
+++ Michael Gilbert [2014-07-15 18:39 -0400]:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It would be nice, however, to have a way to specify the alternate behavior
in
a consistent reliable way (meaning something I can put in the package when I
add source/format).
Archive
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:42:15AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:30AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo a écrit :
In fact I'm wondering what is the rationale to stay with the 1.0 format,
given
all the benefits of the 3.0 (quilt) format:
Hi Mattia,
I am not a big fan
Le Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:19:05AM +0100, Wookey a écrit :
+++ Michael Gilbert [2014-07-15 18:39 -0400]:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It would be nice, however, to have a way to specify the alternate
behavior in
a consistent reliable way (meaning something I
Hi!
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 18:39:14 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It would be nice, however, to have a way to specify the alternate behavior
in
a consistent reliable way (meaning something I can put in the package when I
add
Hi!
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 10:11:00 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
A proper lintian warning can enlighten the maintainer and push him
toward the change or somehow qualify the NMUer to add that file (if
there are no other big changes)
There's no
Yesterday I touched another package without the debian/source/format file.
It was sad: I had to repackage the entire upstream tarball to switch from .xz to
.gz only to make dpkg happy and recognize it as non-native.
For me this is a nonsense.
Lintian has a info tag for this for a lot of time:
Le Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:30AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo a écrit :
In fact I'm wondering what is the rationale to stay with the 1.0 format, given
all the benefits of the 3.0 (quilt) format:
Hi Mattia,
I am not a big fan of the 3.0 (quilt) format because it imposes a patch system.
In
Hi Mattia,
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:26:30AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
Yesterday I touched another package without the debian/source/format file.
It was sad: I had to repackage the entire upstream tarball to switch from .xz
to
.gz only to make dpkg happy and recognize it as non-native.
39 matches
Mail list logo
