Hi,
I just updated https://trends.debian.net/
Lucas
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> [ M-F-T set to -qa@ ]
>
> Hi,
>
> I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
>
> I wonder if we should use the start of the next release cycle to decide
> that we no longer want to accept some packaging practices,
Hi Lucas,
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 09:36:10AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Trends is just based on what lintian reports, and in that case, lintian
> thinks that's the case, see https://lintian.debian.net/sources/probcons
Thanks for the clarification.
> It looks like this package ships both
On 17/04/21 at 08:08 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
>
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
>
> Thanks a lot for Debian Trends. I have checked the code smells[1] for
> I think this is a false
Hi Lucas,
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
Thanks a lot for Debian Trends. I have checked the code smells[1] for
I think this is a false positive:
probcons (U) does not use the
On 13/04/21 at 11:18 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Hi Lucas
>
> I would like to add:
>
> - Removing Berkeley DB.
To clarify, I was focusing on stuff that is already tracked via Trends.
Lucas
Hi Lucas
I would like to add:
- Removing Berkeley DB.
Bastian
--
Violence in reality is quite different from theory.
-- Spock, "The Cloud Minders", stardate 5818.4
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:09:43PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 09/04/21 at 12:33 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 10:42:22AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > I don't think there's a valid technical reason to not use a newer format.
> > > Some dislike the choices
Hi,
On 08/04/21 at 09:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
>
> Thank you.
> I noted that the dates in the "smells" sections are still old. Could
> you perhaps refresh those
Hello Lucas,
On Wed 07 Apr 2021 at 02:03PM +02, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
There are still some reasons to use this source format, and so I think
if we mandated this all that would happen is people would switch to 1.0
(native)
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 06:53:12PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > right, so the severity of these bugs should be wishlist or maybe normal,
> > but I don't think important would be justified, and serious seriously not.
> Yes, totally. I don't think anybody ever talked about the severity of
> any
Hi Adam,
On 09/04/21 at 12:33 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 10:42:22AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > As Mattia pointed out, the "3.0 (quilt)" format supports the
> > "debian-single-patch" option (that you can put in debian/source/options)
> > which makes it behave like
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 10:42:22AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> As Mattia pointed out, the "3.0 (quilt)" format supports the
> "debian-single-patch" option (that you can put in debian/source/options)
> which makes it behave like source format 1.0 and auto-generates/updates a
> single patch in
On Fri, 09 Apr 2021, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> "debian-single-patch" option (that you can put in debian/source/options)
"single-debian-patch", sorry
https://manpages.debian.org/buster/dpkg-dev/dpkg-source.1.en.html#Format:_3.0_(quilt)
Cheers,
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋
Hello,
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021, Bastian Blank wrote:
> How do you export changes? And no, creating separate patches breaks as
> soon as the history is not linear, like after merging a new upstream
> release. Sure, you could rease, but that is not an automatic process.
As Mattia pointed out, the
Hi Lucas
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:01:38PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Is that a real issue in practice? If you can export the changes made to
> upstream sources as a single big diff, surely you can also export them
> as separate patches in 3.0 (quilt)?
How do you export changes? And no,
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:15:45PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > IMHO, they aren't "wrong" or "inherently bad", but I believe keeping
> > them that way is more of technical debt than anything else.
>
> right, so the severity of these bugs should be wishlist or maybe normal,
> but I don't think
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 06:02:35PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Nothing *wrong* as the hard meaning of that word.
> But:
> * They carry the usual set of downsides of 1.0 vs 3.0, like:
>- no support for .tar.(bz2|xz|…)
>- no support for multi tarballs
those don't seem to be relevant for
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:53:06PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > 166 1.0, quilt
>
> I don't see what's wrong with these.
Nothing *wrong* as the hard meaning of that word.
But:
* They carry the usual set of downsides of 1.0
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 166 1.0, quilt
I don't see what's wrong with these.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 08/04/21 at 09:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > Also dpatch. And also 1.0+quilt (ugh). !
>
> So the breakdown for testing is:
>
> 27 1.0, dpatch
I'll take upon myself to get rid of this set RSN.
> 166 1.0, quilt
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:01:38PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 08/04/21 at 11:33 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
> >
> > For this I disagree. At least
Hi Bastian,
On 08/04/21 at 11:33 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Hi Lucas
>
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
>
> For this I disagree. At least until we have something acceptable that
> can
On 08/04/21 at 09:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
>
> Also dpatch. And also 1.0+quilt (ugh). !
So the breakdown for testing is:
27 1.0, dpatch
166 1.0, quilt
374 1.0, no changes
395 1.0, direct changes
Hi,
On 08/04/21 at 09:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
>
> Thank you.
> I noted that the dates in the "smells" sections are still old. Could
> you perhaps refresh those
Hi Lucas
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
For this I disagree. At least until we have something acceptable that
can be used in modern git workflows including operations like cherry
picking and
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:26:31PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:06:46AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
> >
> > Also dpatch. And also 1.0+quilt (ugh). !
> What's left then? Only packages
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:06:46AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
>
> Also dpatch. And also 1.0+quilt (ugh). !
What's left then? Only packages that don't patch the upstream sources at
all?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:03:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
Thank you.
I noted that the dates in the "smells" sections are still old. Could
you perhaps refresh those data as well, so that we have a better idea if
things today are
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 12:05:43PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> > - no support for build-arch and build-indep
> That seems fine, but I'm not sure I'm knowledgeable enough to say for
> certain. I assume that these Just Work if I'm using modern debhelper?
You mean "dh"? Yes.
Bastian
--
Bones:
On 4/7/21 2:03 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I wonder if [...] we no longer want to accept some packaging practices, such
> as:
> - debhelper compat level << 9
> - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
> - no support for build-arch and build-indep
excellent.. to all
On 4/7/21 7:03 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I wonder if we should use the start of the next release cycle to decide
that we no longer want to accept some packaging practices, such as:
- debhelper compat level << 9
- source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
+1 to those
[ M-F-T set to -qa@ ]
Hi,
I just updated Debian Trends: https://trends.debian.net/
I wonder if we should use the start of the next release cycle to decide
that we no longer want to accept some packaging practices, such as:
- debhelper compat level << 9
- source format 1.0 with direct changes in
33 matches
Mail list logo
