Le Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 08:39:50PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
>
> I've proposed a patch to policy (in bug#466550) to bring policy in
> line with this practice.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=466550#42
- This target is optional, but providing it if
On 05-Mar-2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> at the same time, your patch would make it mandatory to write a
> get-orig-source target when uscan(1) can not do the job. […] Can you
> soften your wording to the current "optional" status ?
Agreed. I also should have used the standard document markup for
v
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 11:03:57AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> === modified file 'policy.sgml'
> --- policy.sgml 2009-03-05 08:44:48 +
> +++ policy.sgml 2009-03-05 23:59:38 +
> @@ -1907,12 +1907,21 @@
> get-orig-source (optional)
>
>
> -
On 07-Mar-2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 11:03:57AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > === modified file 'policy.sgml'
[…]
> > + for Debian. See the “Original source archive”
> > + section, below, for policy details of this file.
> > +
>
> Surely, g
On Thu, Mar 05 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
>
>> It's been brought to my attention that this approach actually conflicts
>> with the above section of policy.
>>
>> Am I right in thinking that the ‘get-orig-source’ target should ignore
>> the version strings in ‘debian/changelog’
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I am wondering which is of more use to the end users as well: I
> can always get the sources of the package I have already on my disk
> from Debian, but getting the latest munged source seems more useful to
> me.
Full ACK. The way to get the current upstream
On 11-Mar-2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
> > I am wondering which is of more use to the end users as
> > well: I can always get the sources of the package I have
> > already on my disk from Debian, but getting the latest
> > munged s
On Wed, Mar 11 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 11-Mar-2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>>
>> > I am wondering which is of more use to the end users as
>> > well: I can always get the sources of the package I have
>> > already on my disk from Debi
Hi,
The best way to get the exact sources for the current version
probably should be a new watch file (watch-current) which has a static
version number in the regexp, but can use all the other facilities f
uscan -- wild carded directory, looking thoiugh an index.html page for
a matchi
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Perhaps it is time for me to play a more active role in policy
> again, if Russ is willing to let me back in.
Good heavens, yes. :) I've always found your Policy work to be extremely
valuable, and whatever time you're willing to spend on the work is greatly
On 11-Mar-2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> > It's worth asking, then, what is the original purpose for which the
> > ‘get-orig-source’ target specification was inserted into the policy?
>
> Indeed, the whole rationale for the target, and why it got in
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:13:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This is what diferentiates is from uscan; indeed, I use uscan in
> the cases where I provide the target, The target unpacks the
> raw upstream source, munges it (by, say, removing a subdir which has
> non-dfsg stuff, or
Steve Langasek dijo [Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 02:05:42AM -0700]:
> I think it's perfectly reasonable to want the get-orig-source target to give
> you a *specified* version of an upstream tarball, rather than the *newest*
> version of an upstream tarball. Packaging a new upstream version doesn't
> nece
On Thu, Mar 12 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:13:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> This is what diferentiates is from uscan; indeed, I use uscan in
>> the cases where I provide the target, The target unpacks the
>> raw upstream source, munges it (by, say, r
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Good point you have here - But (and I know it is not being discussed
> yet, maybe you want to teleport this thread a couple of years into the
> future) I feel this should clearly be an optional target, and the
> canonical location for orig.tar.gz files should still be our ar
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> a) Run a upstream version check from cron, which mails me if there are
> new upstream versions of something I have.
> b) If there is a new upstream version, cd checked out dir
> 1. No munging required: use uscan --rename --verbose to get the
>latest so
Hi,
> The best way to get the exact sources for the current version
> probably should be a new watch file (watch-current) which has a static
> version number in the regexp, but can use all the other facilities f
> uscan -- wild carded directory, looking thoiugh an index.html page for
>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:38:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Is this so very different from what people do? Some times I do
> not package every upstream version, if they are coming in rapid
> succession, or if I find some version unfit for Debian -- but in any
> case, the majori
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> a) Run a upstream version check from cron, which mails me if there are
> new upstream versions of something I have.
What happens if your watch file breaks? Do you check upstream announcements
manually, too?
> b) If there is a new upstream version, cd checked out di
On Thu, Mar 12 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I personally use the same technique that Steve uses for the packages that
> I maintain that need to be repacked, and I'm having a failure of
> imagination for how I could do it the way that Manoj describes.
Hmm. Let me see if I can elucidate. He
Steve Langasek writes:
> (N.B.: I say "it makes sense to me", but in practice the packages I've
> inherited hardcode the version to pull in debian/rules rather than
> parsing the changelog. I consider this a minor bug that I just haven't
> gotten around to fixing.)
I got into the habit of doing
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> No, please don't just add another watch file just for the sake of it,
> using these files is more or less like living in the last
> century. People are able to get the current source from the Debian pool,
> if that is not enough for them, they should be old enough to be ab
On 12-Mar-2009, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I feel this should clearly be an optional target, and the canonical
> location for orig.tar.gz files should still be our archive
Yes to both. Thanks for making this explicit in the discussion.
--
\ “Reichel's Law: A body on vacation tends to remain on v
On Thu, Mar 12 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> a) Run a upstream version check from cron, which mails me if there are
>> new upstream versions of something I have.
>> b) If there is a new upstream version, cd checked out dir
>> 1. No munging required: use uscan
On 12-Mar-2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> To recap:
> 1) apt-get source is enough to get the latest Debian source from the
> archive (and whet for older sources)
I presume you mean ‘wget’ here. (Apart from ‘apt-get source’, is there
another tool that is *solely* focussed on getting th
Ben Finney writes:
> On 12-Mar-2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I never use uscan --download; I always download the new upstream source
>> myself using wget or a web browser or FTP client.
> Why is that? Is there some downside to using ‘uscan --download’? I would
> have thought it best to use the au
On 12-Mar-2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
> > b) If there is a new upstream version, cd checked out dir
> > 1. No munging required: use uscan --rename --verbose to get the
> >latest source.
> > 2. Munging needed. Run get-orig-source to get the latest upstre
On 12-Mar-2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The best way to get the exact sources for the current
> > version probably should be a new watch file
> > (watch-current) which has a static version number in the
> > regexp
I don't see why this file would be needed
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:49:19PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> No, please don't just add another watch file just for the sake of it, using
> these files is more or less like living in the last century. People are able
> to
> get the current source from the Debian pool, if that is not enough for
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bernd Zeimetz writes:
>
>> No, please don't just add another watch file just for the sake of it,
>> using these files is more or less like living in the last
>> century. People are able to get the current source from the Debian pool,
>> if that is not enough for them, they s
On Mon, Mar 16 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>
>> I would not be against a recommendation in policy to implement
>> direct-from-vcs upstream tarballs to be created vbia get-orig-source,
>> and everyone else just use debian/watch and debian/urepack files.
>
> Okay,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 03:14:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava writes:
> >
> >> I would not be against a recommendation in policy to implement
> >> direct-from-vcs upstream tarballs to be created vbia get-orig-source,
>
32 matches
Mail list logo
