On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts
version. (see [1])
Awesome, thanks for your work on that.
That said, the choice of debian/copyright as the location for files to
be excluded seems awkward/weird. I would
* Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu, 2013-12-04, 08:43:
uscan to grow features for removing files from upstream tarballs, in a
declarative way preferably.
That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts
version. (see [1])
So now you'll have to audit both d/watch and
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:12:49AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu, 2013-12-04, 08:43:
uscan to grow features for removing files from upstream
tarballs, in a declarative way preferably.
That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next
devscripts
* Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu, 2013-12-04, 10:41:
uscan to grow features for removing files from upstream tarballs, in a
declarative way preferably.
That's in devscripts git and will be included in the next devscripts
version. (see [1])
So now you'll have to audit both d/watch and
* Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org, 2013-12-04, 19:58:
Well, there was a lenthy discussion, uscan bug, Wiki page trying to
summarise everything. The people who contributed did not brought up your
(and Paul's concern) and I guess Charles Plessy would have been in favour of
using d/upstream. I
Le Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 12:13:48PM +0100, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
* Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org, 2013-12-04, 19:58:
Well, there was a lenthy discussion, uscan bug, Wiki page
trying to summarise everything. The people who contributed
did not brought up your (and Paul's concern) and I guess
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:49:02PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
better solution and migrating the existing information, Andreas
will complain.
s/complain/comply/ perhaps?
D'oh as well.
Indeed, I meant will not complain, sorry for the noise...
I think all readers had the proper mind
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:30:01AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
AFAICS they way get_main_source_dir() is currently implemented lets
malicious upstream to plant files in their tarball that would cause
arbitrary code execution...
Would you mind proposing a proper fix and forward it to the
I try to keep an eye on what other distros are doing w.r.t. Python 3. Here
are Fedora's plans:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Py2to3GuidelineChanges
Some of these things are not relevant to us (e.g. DNF vs. yum). Others
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@debian.org wrote:
I try to keep an eye on what other distros are doing w.r.t. Python 3. Here
are Fedora's plans:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Py2to3GuidelineChanges
Hi Barry,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:25:16AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I try to keep an eye on what other distros are doing w.r.t. Python 3. Here
are Fedora's plans:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default
Instead, I mean, what would it take for the basic Debian system to install
Python 3 only by default, and have any system scripts that depend on Python
be Python 3.
Nothing.
I just did a default no-tasks selected debian wheezy system and no version of
python was installed.
Using a
Barry Warsaw ba...@debian.org writes:
On Dec 04, 2013, at 01:36 PM, Stuart Prescott wrote:
Having uscan call debian/rules get-orig-source is quite difficult to do in
a policy-compliant way (as already noted by Jakub) as the location for the
munged tarball is different. Having uscan call a
13 matches
Mail list logo
