Re: library packaging doc...
Osamu Aoki wrote: On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 06:24:31PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Osamu Aoki wrote: Or see and follow the instructions summarised on http://master.debian.org/~joey/misc/webwml.html#ddp PS: If you are in rush, I or javi should be able to add you as a pserver access user just like other non-DD. We need to check out CVSROOT/passwd file or so, I think. I have not done it. Negative. See above. Thanks for the clarification. Can you clarify what these DDP CVS messages means http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2005/01/msg00046.html It means that I have added fbothamy alias Frédéric Bothamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the French translation to the debian-doc CVS repository and documented it in CVSROOT/passwd There passwd file has commit from your account :-) Yes, because otherwise there would be no log of which pserver account belongs to which real person and mail address and when it has been added. Are they just bogus noise to list? No, they're log files. Or you only have write access? We do not. It is owned by cvs_doc group. You should also have write access to CVSROOT/passwd but only DSA has write access to the real password file. Regards, Joey -- Open source is important from a technical angle. -- Linus Torvalds Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:46:27PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: Hi Joey Just request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] while pointing them our message on this list. Or see and follow the instructions summarised on http://master.debian.org/~joey/misc/webwml.html#ddp According to the page you pointed to, it seems to tell me that I should send request to you, after approval of debian doc people. Yes. But I thought previous discussion omplicitly gave you a status of being part of debian-doc. Hereby I am sending a request. Just to be sure... hereby agreeing and requesting him a part of the group. I consider that with this thread debian-doc people have given approval. Good luck. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
Hi Joey Just request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] while pointing them our message on this list. Or see and follow the instructions summarised on http://master.debian.org/~joey/misc/webwml.html#ddp According to the page you pointed to, it seems to tell me that I should send request to you, after approval of debian doc people. Hereby I am sending a request. Is this okay? I consider that with this thread debian-doc people have given approval. regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 06:24:31PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Osamu Aoki wrote: Or see and follow the instructions summarised on http://master.debian.org/~joey/misc/webwml.html#ddp PS: If you are in rush, I or javi should be able to add you as a pserver access user just like other non-DD. We need to check out CVSROOT/passwd file or so, I think. I have not done it. Negative. See above. Thanks for the clarification. Can you clarify what these DDP CVS messages means http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2005/01/msg00046.html There passwd file has commit from your account :-) Are they just bogus noise to list? Or you only have write access? We do not. It is owned by cvs_doc group. You mean cvs repouid patch limit access to the passwd file from non-pserver users too? Just curious. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
Osamu Aoki wrote: Please get it. Having DOC in CVS makes easier for proofreader to correct things. For me, I initially got patches. But after a while, I developed mutual trust with few people. They start fixing it with write access sometimes later. But they always ask significant changes to me. It was nice way to get my English fixed. Sure, any DD can get that access check out http://www.debian.org/doc/cvs Not any more. (I think) After compromise of debian server, we are limitting access to DDP to the member of debian-doc or some group like that for DD. Just request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] while pointing them our message on this list. Or see and follow the instructions summarised on http://master.debian.org/~joey/misc/webwml.html#ddp Unfortunately, I do not have access to gluck now. I do not know why, but it does not connect now. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/01/msg00013.html PS: If you are in rush, I or javi should be able to add you as a pserver access user just like other non-DD. We need to check out CVSROOT/passwd file or so, I think. I have not done it. Negative. See above. Regards, Joey -- MIME - broken solution for a broken design. -- Ralf Baechle Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:05:14PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:03:23PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: 3. can I get commit-access to CVS? Please get it. Having DOC in CVS makes easier for proofreader to correct things. For me, I initially got patches. But after a while, I developed mutual trust with few people. They start fixing it with write access sometimes later. But they always ask significant changes to me. It was nice way to get my English fixed. Sure, any DD can get that access check out http://www.debian.org/doc/cvs Not any more. (I think) After compromise of debian server, we are limitting access to DDP to the member of debian-doc or some group like that for DD. Just request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] while pointing them our message on this list. Unfortunately, I do not have access to gluck now. I do not know why, but it does not connect now. Osamu PS: If you are in rush, I or javi should be able to add you as a pserver access user just like other non-DD. We need to check out CVSROOT/passwd file or so, I think. I have not done it.
Re: library packaging doc...
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 12:20:25PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: I haven't read the document in question in a rather long time, so I can't actually object (on some sort of serious basis, I mean), but I would nevertheless request that the document be handed to the -english mailing list for proofreading *before* it's uploaded as a package and that a big THIS IS A *GUIDE* banner be stamped on it. The last thing I want is people complaining that libfoo doesn't follow some chapter and verse of said guide under the impression that it is somehow correct, standard or mandatory. I think this proofreading has happened some time ago; but will definitely benefit from being proof-read again. Most definitely. Proofreading != spellchecking, you know? The (current!) document has a very, what should I call it? Bumpy style? Maybe even jolty. Your use of punctuation is... let's say unusual. What I'm saying is that it's hard to read. You provide little rationale at places where rationale is really needed and make some assertions at places where they are really not needed. Off the top of my head, the SONAME section could use some rewriting. The parts concerning to static libraries need some serious rewording. The part about version numbers really needs clear examples. In fact, the whole thing needs do [this] and watch it break like [this] examples. This document has been around for more than 2 years now. I know. I didn't like it at the beginning either. It *does* contain some rather useful information, but again, it falls short at places where it shouldn't. As for your objection of correct, standard or mandatory, I would say that this document is a recommendation, and should be followed when there is not a good argument against it. If there is a good reason not to follow this document, in which case I would recommend providing a patch against the libpkg-guide. What I'm saying is that -- in the same way that some people insist on Debian Policy to be followed blindly -- there are already some people insisting that this document be followed blindly. Raising the status of it to something more official would make things only worse. After all, what this document tried to be is to document current practice, backed with some bugreports resulting from mis-packaging; Yes, I still remember the discussion and I'm still burned out by it. I recall vividly how I had to waste much time to convince you that there was a problem with libpng in the first place and then even more time to get you to understand what the proper solution was. I really have no intention of rehashing that chapter. Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
Hi, Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sat, Jan 29, 2005: What I'm saying is that -- in the same way that some people insist on Debian Policy to be followed blindly -- there are already some people insisting that this document be followed blindly. Raising the status of it to something more official would make things only worse. It's a vicious circle: the actual document can't be the official reference in its current state, so you don't want a package / debian.org web page / BTS entry for the document, so the documentation can't be corrected easily etc. (Sorry if I misunderstood some parts of the discussion). I feel documentation lacks in this domain, and this documentation is better than nothing. I agree it might be wrong on some points (or so I was told), and I propose that this guide should start with a warning that is is currently worked on, and did not reach an official state yet (something like BETA in red in the name should do). Would this documentation with a warning it's still beta be acceptable to enter the archive and be linked to in the devel/ section? This might allow others to contribute to the doc constructively by submitting patches, or filing bugs on the various topics that might be discussed. Bye, -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 02:54:07AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: I was kind of waiting for inclusion into the developers reference, but the text format is different. libpkg-guide is written in docbook XML while developers reference is written in DebianDoc SGML. Could you please consider contributing this to the DDP and adding it to the DDP CVS? I'd rather not have Debian Documentation in all sort of different places, specially documentation written by DDs. And the DDP is the proper place to both provide this (through the CVS, which gets built and published in Debian's website) and submit bugs to (through the virtual 'debian-doc' package) Considering that enough people seem to be feeling the itch for libpkg-guide package, and since I would consider using the BTS etc. for revision management of libpkg-guide, I might go around packaging it as a Debian package. The DDP does not have currently a virtual BTS entry (like www.debian.org) but one could be set up if needed for documents there. Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: library packaging doc...
Hi, I seem to have lost the mail I tried to send last time, rewriting. Could you please consider contributing this to the DDP and adding it to the DDP CVS? I'd rather not have Debian Documentation in all sort of different places, specially documentation written by DDs. And the DDP is the proper place to both provide this (through the CVS, which gets built and published in Debian's website) and submit bugs to (through the virtual 'debian-doc' package) I need three things 1. Is result of DDP packaged in Debian as a batch? 2. does it support docbook sgml/xml? 3. can I get commit-access to CVS? regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:03:23PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: I need three things 1. Is result of DDP packaged in Debian as a batch? No (but could be done :-) 2. does it support docbook sgml/xml? CVS supports anything, automatic builds do support Docbook (you have sample Xml Makefiles in the 'xml-sgml-policy', 'repository-howto' and 'distribute-deb' repositories. 3. can I get commit-access to CVS? Sure, any DD can get that access check out http://www.debian.org/doc/cvs Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: library packaging doc...
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed, Jan 26, 2005: It is already linked from deveopers reference. It would be nice to have a package for this guide, for example to request fixes and to make something official out of it. The author seems to be Junichi Uekawa, dancer at debian, and is hence a logical packaging candidate. O:-) Junichi, do you have packaging plans for your guide? Should I fill an RFP on it? I may try to package it; I was kind of waiting for inclusion into the developers reference, but the text format is different. libpkg-guide is written in docbook XML while developers reference is written in DebianDoc SGML. Considering that enough people seem to be feeling the itch for libpkg-guide package, and since I would consider using the BTS etc. for revision management of libpkg-guide, I might go around packaging it as a Debian package. Any objections? regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Considering that enough people seem to be feeling the itch for libpkg-guide package, and since I would consider using the BTS etc. for revision management of libpkg-guide, I might go around packaging it as a Debian package. Any objections? IIRC there were some people who objected to some of the contents of the document. But even for those it is probably better to have a Debian package - if it's important, the discussion will take place in bug reports, instead of not taking place. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: library packaging doc...
Junichi Uekawa writes, Considering that enough people seem to be feeling the itch for libpkg-guide package, and since I would consider using the BTS etc. for revision management of libpkg-guide, I might go around packaging it as a Debian package. I had meant politely to ask you to package libpkg-guide, Junichi, only I have not wanted to push you. The libpkg-guide is a very useful document, a document which skillfully demystifies the practice of library packaging, a document which I really appreciate. (If you feel that the document remains incomplete, this is okay. It may never be 100 percent complete; but it is already complete enough to be very useful, exactly as it is right now.) Any objections? No. If you feel inclined to do so, please package libpkg-guide and put it in sid now, then let it propagate normally to sarge. If you did this, I for one would install and use the package. -- Thaddeus H. Black 508 Nellie's Cave Road Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA +1 540 961 0920, [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp04yMpoiiol.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: library packaging doc...
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:37:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: IIRC there were some people who objected to some of the contents of the document. But even for those it is probably better to have a Debian package - if it's important, the discussion will take place in bug reports, instead of not taking place. I haven't read the document in question in a rather long time, so I can't actually object (on some sort of serious basis, I mean), but I would nevertheless request that the document be handed to the -english mailing list for proofreading *before* it's uploaded as a package and that a big THIS IS A *GUIDE* banner be stamped on it. The last thing I want is people complaining that libfoo doesn't follow some chapter and verse of said guide under the impression that it is somehow correct, standard or mandatory. Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
I haven't read the document in question in a rather long time, so I can't actually object (on some sort of serious basis, I mean), but I would nevertheless request that the document be handed to the -english mailing list for proofreading *before* it's uploaded as a package and that a big THIS IS A *GUIDE* banner be stamped on it. The last thing I want is people complaining that libfoo doesn't follow some chapter and verse of said guide under the impression that it is somehow correct, standard or mandatory. I think this proofreading has happened some time ago; but will definitely benefit from being proof-read again. This document has been around for more than 2 years now. As for your objection of correct, standard or mandatory, I would say that this document is a recommendation, and should be followed when there is not a good argument against it. If there is a good reason not to follow this document, in which case I would recommend providing a patch against the libpkg-guide. After all, what this document tried to be is to document current practice, backed with some bugreports resulting from mis-packaging; and tried to document a guideline on which there was no real guideline. regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
On 2005-01-26 Pierre Ancelot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, i would point to this link : http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html [...] It is already linked from deveopers reference. cu andreas PS: It is pretty useless to sign messages without making the public key available, please upload it to the keyservers, especially subkeys.pgp.net. -- See, I told you they'd listen to Reason, [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf, fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha. Neal Stephenson in Snow Crash http://downhill.aus.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library packaging doc...
Hi, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed, Jan 26, 2005: It is already linked from deveopers reference. It would be nice to have a package for this guide, for example to request fixes and to make something official out of it. The author seems to be Junichi Uekawa, dancer at debian, and is hence a logical packaging candidate. O:-) Junichi, do you have packaging plans for your guide? Should I fill an RFP on it? Bye, -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Neutral President: I have no strong feelings one way or the other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
