Your message dated Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:13:17 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line hg-buildpackage: package was removed
has caused the Debian Bug report #448444,
regarding merge hg-buildpackage with git-buildpackage?
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
448444: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=448444
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: hg-buildpackage
Version: 1.0.3
Severity: wishlist
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
Hi,
I want to use Mercurial for my packages and I have a couple of
suggestions about the hg-buildpackage.
I find it not very convenient to keep the "bacula.upstream" directory
around. Why not to do it the same way as git-buildpackage is doing?
There is not so big difference between git and hg. Basically, it's
enough to use hg branches. Because the bacula.upstream repository can
be reconstructed from the "bacula" one, by looking at tags/branches. I
think it's really important to only have one repository per package,
not two.
Also, I am missing a feature to build the package outside the hg
directory (i.e. an equivalent of --git-export-dir).
I'd like to help you with the package, but unfortunately, I don't know
Haskell. But I know Python really well. It occured to me, why not to
improve the git-buildpackage (that seems to be used a lot) to also
work with hg? My provisional code attached.
Only the very basic things were ported, it seems works and reuses most
of the code from git-buildpackage. By comparing:
http://hg.debian.org/hg/
http://git.debian.org/
it is clear that the momentum is on the git side, so I think it's
better to only maintain one package (with two backends - git and hg).
Also it's good for maintainers to only learn one way of doing things,
be it hg or git.
Cheers,
Ondrej
--- System information. ---
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux 2.6.21-1-686
Debian Release: lenny/sid
500 unstable ftp.cz.debian.org
500 unstable debian.certik.cz
--- Package information. ---
Depends (Version) | Installed
===========================-+-===========
dctrl-tools | 2.12
mercurial (>= 0.9.4) | 0.9.4-1
hg-load-dirs (>= 1.1.4) | 1.1.4
dpkg-dev | 1.14.7
devscripts | 2.10.9
libc6 (>= 2.6-1) | 2.6.1-6
libgmp3c2 | 2:4.2.2+dfsg-1
hg-buildpackage-ad73ec231740.tar.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
hg-buildpackage was removed from Debian some time ago, so keeping these bugs
open doesn't make sense.
cheers
-- vbi
--
Protect your privacy - encrypt your email: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
--- End Message ---
