Hello,
On 17.12.2012 22:01, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
1) Send a last-call anouncement to ubuntu-devel requesting bug reports
about any missing material. Announce steps 2 and 3 will take place
after one month.
2) Move the entire PackagingGuide wiki namespace en masse to
Barry Warsaw [2013-01-08 14:59 -0500]:
IMHO, the main obstacle is the success rate of the package importer.
In my experience that doesn't matter. If a package doesn't have a
current UDD branch, then there's always the good old apt-get
source/edit.
IMHO the main obstacle is that UDD does not
On Jan 09, 2013, at 09:03 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
IMHO the main obstacle is that UDD does not work well for common use
cases. I find myself not exactly liking UDD even for the (vast
majority of) packages where the branches are up to date, mostly
because its design is a bit upside down: It has
On Dec 18, 2012, at 07:16 PM, Mike Carifio wrote:
I'm the first person to admit that I probably don't get it yet or see
the obstacles to UDD utopia.
IMHO, the main obstacle is the success rate of the package importer.
Still, according to the status page [1] there are 821 failures. Is this page
Hi,
Le 20/12/2012 13:00, ubuntu-devel-requ...@lists.ubuntu.com a écrit :
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:16:49 -0500 From: Barry Warsaw
ba...@ubuntu.com To: ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Styles
of Packaging (was: Deprecating the wiki-based Packaging Guide)
Message-ID
On Dec 18, 2012, at 06:05 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
UDD poses a different set of problems. I'm not sure how relevant it is to
the upstream developer who just wants to package their software; at the very
least, I think the developer docs should explicitly deal with the
possibility that the
Hello,
On 18.12.2012 01:52, Scott Kitterman wrote:
UDD is not mature or reliable enough to be presented to new users as the
way to do packaging for Ubuntu. I think the current guide is fatally flawed
as is.
As soon as a branch is out of date, new users are lost.
while out-of-date
On 12/18/2012 09:23 AM, Daniel Holbach wrote:
Hello,
On 18.12.2012 01:52, Scott Kitterman wrote:
UDD is not mature or reliable enough to be presented to new users as the
way to do packaging for Ubuntu. I think the current guide is fatally flawed
as is.
As soon as a branch is out of
Hello,
On 18.12.2012 16:35, Micah Gersten wrote:
I think the point is that the new guide would have to include the
pull-lp-source/debdiff/attach to bug route as well before some of us are
comfortable deleting that information from the Wiki. It's not so much
where it lives as that it's
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 03:16:13PM +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote:
While it may appear that way at first glance, this is very much an
intentional consequence of policy-based packaging, which Ubuntu inherits
from Debian. By having packaging judged against policy, rather than
against some
Mike Carifio cari...@usys.com wrote:
On 12/18/2012 05:48 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Barry Warsaw ba...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 2012, at 07:52 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
UDD is not mature or reliable enough to be presented to new users
as
the
way to do packaging for Ubuntu. I think
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:08:04AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
1. While there are sponsors that prefer branches over debdiffs/source
packages uploaded somewhere, I don't know of any that will only sponsor
branches. The reverse is not true. There are developers that don't do
UDD
Steve Langasek steve.langa...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:08:04AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
1. While there are sponsors that prefer branches over
debdiffs/source
packages uploaded somewhere, I don't know of any that will only
sponsor
branches. The reverse is not true.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:09:39PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I find the interfaces to the UDD tools very confusing. Here's but one
example (yes, I filed a bug, no I don't recall the number):
The basic dpkg-buildpackage command to build a source package that will
include the upstream
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:19:31PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Steve Langasek steve.langa...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:08:04AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
1. While there are sponsors that prefer branches over debdiffs/source
packages uploaded somewhere, I don't know
Steve Langasek steve.langa...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:09:39PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I find the interfaces to the UDD tools very confusing. Here's but one
example (yes, I filed a bug, no I don't recall the number):
The basic dpkg-buildpackage command to build a
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
One concrete example where UDD shines and the non-UDD workflow is
inadequate is for sponsoring of package merges. If someone hands me a
branch that properly merges the new Debian version into the Ubuntu
branch, I can review
Steve Langasek steve.langa...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
One concrete example where UDD shines and the non-UDD workflow is
inadequate is for sponsoring of package merges. If someone hands me
a
branch that properly merges the new Debian
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It only works better if you are using UDD. I agree that if your primary
workflow is UDD based, then UDD branches are better. If I get a branch
it's as useless for me as a debdiff is for you. When asked
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 01:02:21 PM Emmet Hikory wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:33:18PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It only works better if you are using UDD. I agree that if your primary
workflow is UDD based, then UDD branches are better. If I get a
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 01:02:21 PM Emmet Hikory wrote:
Is it not the case that if one prefers UDD, one can just pull the
current Debian import from launchpad, apply the diff proposed by the
candidate, run debcommit, and end up with a branch with all the
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 02:02:58 PM Emmet Hikory wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 01:02:21 PM Emmet Hikory wrote:
Is it not the case that if one prefers UDD, one can just pull the
current Debian import from launchpad, apply the diff proposed by
Steve Langasek [2012-12-18 18:40 -0800]:
A debdiff for a merge of a new upstream package version actually
*is* useless and is a waste of the sponsoree's time, for the stated
reason that the review of such a debdiff involves re-doing the
merge myself.
A debdiff between the current Debian and
Hi all,
As Daniel recently announce, the new Sphinx-based Ubuntu Packaging
Guide [0] has recently reached a major milestone. It is now fully
translated and available in Spanish. [1] Good progress is currently
being made on making it available in other languages as well. [2]
Another major
Am Montag, den 17.12.2012, 16:01 -0500 schrieb Andrew Starr-Bochicchio:
1) Send a last-call anouncement to ubuntu-devel requesting bug reports
about any missing material. Announce steps 2 and 3 will take place
after one month.
2) Move the entire PackagingGuide wiki namespace en masse to
Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Am Montag, den 17.12.2012, 16:01 -0500 schrieb Andrew Starr-Bochicchio:
1) Send a last-call anouncement to ubuntu-devel requesting bug reports
about any missing material. Announce steps 2
Hi Emmet!
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Emmet Hikory per...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Am Montag, den 17.12.2012, 16:01 -0500 schrieb Andrew Starr-Bochicchio:
Will these bugs tracked and fixed
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 03:16:13 PM Emmet Hikory wrote:
There is definitely a set of tools that are currently the most popular
in the Debian archive, and these integrate well with a set of tools being
developed under the Ubuntu Distributed Development moniker, which
combination may
Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
Hi Emmet!
Hi!
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Emmet Hikory per...@ubuntu.com wrote:
While I'm all in favour of a return to a managed (and packagable)
packaging guide, I think there is value in being clear that folk who wish to
package have a plethora
On 12/17/2012 08:11 PM, Emmet Hikory wrote:
Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Am Montag, den 17.12.2012, 16:01 -0500 schrieb Andrew Starr-Bochicchio:
1) Send a last-call anouncement to ubuntu-devel requesting bug reports
30 matches
Mail list logo
