On Mon, Dec 12 2022 at 11:52:00 PM +, Thorsten Glaser
wrote:
Andres Salomon dixit:
youtube-dl was a bad idea, and we should instead have a users and
packages
manually switch.
How do you consider making users do so?
Add an otherwise empty youtube-dl binary package to src:yt-dlp
wit
Andres Salomon dixit:
> youtube-dl was a bad idea, and we should instead have a users and packages
> manually switch.
How do you consider making users do so?
Add an otherwise empty youtube-dl binary package to src:yt-dlp
with both README.Debian and NEWS.Debian (for apt-listchanges)
telling them
Sorry all for the silence on this front.
I haven't uploaded yet because I went back and forth a bunch on what to
do. Then I looked at some of the packages that depend upon youtube-dl
and realized that a bunch of them have code that already is checking
for both yt-dlp and youtube-dl (including
Andreas Tille dixit:
>it at all. I'm also wondering whether the string
>
> 2021.12.17+really-yt-dl-2022.11.11-1
>
>is a better version number than just increasing the Debian revision.
Why not just use the upstream version? It’s newer after all:
2022.11.11-1
What are the respective adv
Hi Andres,
you have fixed the bugs in youtube-dl in d/changelog and have set target
distribution to "unstable" which in those teams I'm working with is a
signal that the package is actually uploaded. Since this is not the
case I have reset it to UNRELEASED when I fixed the watch file (no
matter w
5 matches
Mail list logo
