Hi all,
Up to now the only options for pulling patches from distributions
derived from Debian have been Ubuntu's Debian patches repository[1] and
manual downloads of source packages from derivatives. In my estimation a
more general way to do this would be desirable.
1. http://patches.ubuntu.
hiya,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 03:50:07PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> For the presentation side of things I am thinking one approach might be
> to move UbuntuDiff[8] to the QA infrastructure, generalise it and
> enhance it for this purpose. This will necessarily include mechanisms to
> mark patches a
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM, sean finney wrote:
> I think it's also worth some consideration about if/how it could be
> integrated with the Debian patch-tracker service (or perhaps supercede said
> service if it made more sense).
>
> Without thinking super hard on it it seems like it could hav
On 25/10/2011 09:50, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> For the presentation side of things I am thinking one approach might be
> to move UbuntuDiff[8] to the QA infrastructure, generalise it and
> enhance it for this purpose. This will necessarily include mechanisms
> to mark patches as having been dealt wit
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 15:50:07 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Up to now the only options for pulling patches from distributions
> derived from Debian have been Ubuntu's Debian patches repository[1] and
> manual downloads of source packages from derivatives. In my estimation a
> more gene
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:57:20 +0200
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 25/10/2011 09:50, Paul Wise wrote:
> >
> > For the presentation side of things I am thinking one approach
> > might be to move UbuntuDiff[8] to the QA infrastructure, generalise
> > it and enhance it for this purpose. This will necessar
Am Mittwoch, den 26.10.2011, 08:49 +1100 schrieb Karl Goetz:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:57:20 +0200
> Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>
> > On 25/10/2011 09:50, Paul Wise wrote:
> > >
> > > For the presentation side of things I am thinking one approach
> > > might be to move UbuntuDiff[8] to the QA infrastruc
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Is there a reason to restrict this to derivatives? I find patches from
> fedora rather more interesting than ubuntu's.
Fedora don't use Debian source packages so we don't have anything to
debdiff against.
But I guess you mean patches agai
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> I'm glad you liked it. ubuntudiff¹ was made exactly to show this kind of
> data. Currently, all ubuntudiff needs to produce html pages in some file
> listing source package names and associated patches. So, nothing is really
> bound to patches
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> I'm glad you liked it. ubuntudiff¹ was made exactly to show this kind of
> data. Currently, all ubuntudiff needs to produce html pages in some file
> listing source package names and associated patches. So, nothing is really
> bound to patches
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Karl Goetz wrote:
> As a (largely) non coder, what should I look for in (say) gNewSenses
> patches to know if it can be filtered out automatically? Are there any
> common indicators?
Anything that looks like cruft or things that the Debian maintainer
does not need
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:34:47 +0800
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Karl Goetz wrote:
>
> > As a (largely) non coder, what should I look for in (say) gNewSenses
> > patches to know if it can be filtered out automatically? Are there
> > any common indicators?
>
> Anything that
12 matches
Mail list logo
