> I looked into better tooling/editor support in general for Debian
> languages in general. I think the industry answer is that "someone"
> ought to build a "language (LSP) server" for the Debian languages, which
> would enable editors with LSP support[1] to get the same basic features.
True - LSP
Otto Kekäläinen:
Hi!
Thanks for the tip, Niels!
It would be cool if dh_assistant had some kind of generic command like
"dh_assistant validate" which would attempt to introspect all
information silently and emit output only if it fails to parse
something.
That might be an option. The question
Hi,
On 1/21/24 21:35, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Now … does that apply to crossing release boundaries? Specifically, if
foo/testing requires bar >=1.1 to work but just states "Depends: bar
>=1", and bar/stable is 1.0.42 … is that a bug? If so which severity?
I'd say yes, with normal severity.
> "Stan" == Stan Johnson writes:
Stan> sysvinit-core. But if wdm really does require systemd now,
Stan> that might explain this issue, with other X packages being
Stan> dependent on either wdm or systemd. As I recall, wdm is the
It does not look like wdm requires systemd.
I set up
Hi!
Thanks for the tip, Niels!
It would be cool if dh_assistant had some kind of generic command like
"dh_assistant validate" which would attempt to introspect all
information silently and emit output only if it fails to parse
something. Additionally it could emit a non-zero exit code on errors.
Hi Colin,
On 1/21/24 3:22 PM, Stan Johnson wrote:
> ...
>
> I'll also try installing systemd first (and let sysvinit-core be
> uninstalled), then I'll run "apt-get dist-upgrade", then re-install
> sysvinit-core and see if that disables systemd and lets the X packages
> remain. I've noticed before
Hi Simon,
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 03:24:25PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > How annoying would it actually be to split this to a
> > different source package?
>
> Really quite annoying. [...]
You gave more than sufficient reason. I won't argue.
> If porters are interested in making bootstrap
Hi Colin,
Thanks for your reply.
On 1/21/24 12:35 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 10:41:05AM -0700, Stan Johnson wrote:
>> I have a PowerMac G4 MDD (two 1.25 GHz CPUs, 2 GiB memory) that has been
>> running Debian SID for years. It was last updated on 15 Oct 2023, with
>> no pro
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 10:41:05AM -0700, Stan Johnson wrote:
> I have a PowerMac G4 MDD (two 1.25 GHz CPUs, 2 GiB memory) that has been
> running Debian SID for years. It was last updated on 15 Oct 2023, with
> no problems. Yesterday, the update failed. Specifically, "apt-get
> update" worked, "ap
Hello,
I have a PowerMac G4 MDD (two 1.25 GHz CPUs, 2 GiB memory) that has been
running Debian SID for years. It was last updated on 15 Oct 2023, with
no problems. Yesterday, the update failed. Specifically, "apt-get
update" worked, "apt-get upgrade" worked, and "apt-get dist-upgrade"
worked but d
Hi, Helmut. I'm very sorry for responding to an 8-months old letter,
but I think my message is important.
Helmut Grohne:
> * mmdebstrap operates in two phases. It first unpacks and configures a
> rather minimal set of packages and then proceeds to adding packages
> passed to --include in a sec
Hi,
On 21-01-2024 16:08, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
However according to our release notes we only support upgrading from
release x to x+1, skipping releases is not allowed.
I'm not talking about skipping releases but about partial upgrades.
Thus …
> foo/testing requires bar >=1.1 to work but
On 2024-01-21 Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> On 21.01.24 15:34, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > However according to our release notes we only support upgrading from
> > release x to x+1, skipping releases is not allowed.
> I'm not talking about skipping releases but about partial upgrades.
eah, but it st
Package: wnpp
Followup-For: Bug #1040971
Owner: Alan M Varghese
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, a...@digistorm.in
* Package name: hyprland
Version : 0.34.0
Upstream Contact: vaxerski
* URL : https://github.com/hyprwm/Hyprland
* License : BSD-3-C
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Drew Parsons
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org,
debian-scie...@lists.debian.org, debichem-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
* Package name: custodian
Version : 2024.1.9
Upstream Contact: Shyue Ping Ong
Niels Thykier:
[...]
Btw, `debhelper` has a `dh_assistant` command that can do some very
basic analysis as well. Not sure any of it is useful for editor
integration (especially because some of the features requires that it
receives the same arguments as `dh` or/and `dh_auto_configure`).
Pe
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 11:08:30 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:38:09PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > The only package where I'm sure that I intend to separate out the GIR
> > XML in the short term is src:glib2.0
>
> How annoying would it actually be to split this to a
On 21.01.24 15:34, Andreas Metzler wrote:
However according to our release notes we only support upgrading from
release x to x+1, skipping releases is not allowed.
I'm not talking about skipping releases but about partial upgrades.
Thus …
> foo/testing requires bar >=1.1 to work but just stat
Quoting Matthias Urlichs (2024-01-21 13:35:05)
> question: policy 3.5 states, rather unequivocally,
>
> Every package must specify the dependency information about other
> packages that are required for the first to work correctly.
>
> Now … does that apply to crossing release boundaries?
On 2024-01-21 Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> question: policy 3.5 states, rather unequivocally,
>Every package must specify the dependency information about other
>packages that are required for the first to work correctly.
> Now … does that apply to crossing release boundaries? Specifically,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:38:09PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 23:15:03 +0100, Matthias Geiger wrote:
> > Does this mean we should should split out the .gir XML files from existing
> > source packages into a separate gir1.2-foo-dev (in the long run) ?
>
> That's a good qu
Hi,
question: policy 3.5 states, rather unequivocally,
Every package must specify the dependency information about other
packages that are required for the first to work correctly.
Now … does that apply to crossing release boundaries? Specifically, if
foo/testing requires bar >=1.1 to wo
Hi Enrico (cc d-devel list),
Quoting Enrico Zini (2022-10-19 15:20:43)
> I would like to let go of the responsibility of maintaining
> debtags.debian.org.
>
> Over the years I did my best to simplify the whole system, so picking up
> maintenance shouldn't be too hard, if there is interest.
>
> I
Otto Kekäläinen:
Hi!
What editors and extensions are you using to augment your productivity
and minimize mistakes when editing debian/* files?
I am aware of dpkg-dev-el for Emacs mentioned in the DD reference[1].
I am a big fan of Pulsar[2] and recently found a 'language-debian'
plugin for Puls
Hi Sebastian,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 10:49:23AM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > > > > > 22 libobs-dev
> > > > > That's a change to the plugin ABI only.
> > > > Can you explain how you've reached that conclusion? This is a package
> > > > that failed to be analyzed in the latest run; an ea
25 matches
Mail list logo
