On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Bastien,
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:12:47PM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> I will add a Lintian warning if debian/uscan is a file.
>
> Just to make sure it was only a typo: You surely mean debian/upstream,
> right?
Right
>
> Kind
Hi Simon,
(Charles intentionally in CC to make sure it will not be overlooked)
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:43:51PM +0100, Simon Kainz wrote:
> I use a daily dump of
>
> svn://svn.debian.org/svn/collab-qa/packages-metadata
>
> to get the URLS from upstream metadata into DUCK. Does this naming
> co
Hi Bastien,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:12:47PM +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> I will add a Lintian warning if debian/uscan is a file.
Just to make sure it was only a typo: You surely mean debian/upstream,
right?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
I will add a Lintian warning if debian/uscan is a file.
Le 25 févr. 2014 20:44, "Simon Kainz" a écrit :
>
> Hello,
>
> I use a daily dump of
>
> svn://svn.debian.org/svn/collab-qa/packages-metadata
>
> to get the URLS from upstream metadata into DUCK. Does this naming
conflict somehow change
> the
Hello,
I use a daily dump of
svn://svn.debian.org/svn/collab-qa/packages-metadata
to get the URLS from upstream metadata into DUCK. Does this naming
conflict somehow change
the structure of this repo? Currently i process *.upstream files and i
wonder if they also might get renamed somehow.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am 2014-02-23 09:01, schrieb Andreas Tille:
> Hi Simon,
>
> I have no idea whether you did follow the discussion but it would
> be great if you could submit a patch to the lintian check you
> recently wrote. The upstream files will be moved from
>
Hi James,
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:28:13PM -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 10:07:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > you are very welcome to migrate the ‘debian/upstream’ files of the Debian
> > Med
> > packaging team. Please do not worry about the
> > ‘debian/upstream-m
Hi Simon,
I have no idea whether you did follow the discussion but it would be
great if you could submit a patch to the lintian check you recently
wrote. The upstream files will be moved from debian/upstream (the
file) to debian/upstream/metadata.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Sat, Feb 22, 201
ah -- info is there (missed it among numerous) CCs
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736760
citing:
Since 2.14.1, uscan now uses debian/upstream/signing-key.* for the
upstream signatures.
This seems to conflict with the debian/upstream file, as decribed in
https://wiki.debian.org/
Have I missed the background?
is debian/watch getting renamed to debian/upstream -- where is the
"conflict"?
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:11:41PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:06:42AM -0500, James McCoy a écrit :
>
Le 12 févr. 2014 15:41, "Andreas Tille" a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:11:41PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:06:42AM -0500, James McCoy a écrit :
> > >
> > > That being said, I don't have access to most of the packages. Even
if I
> > > did, it feels
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 10:07:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> you are very welcome to migrate the ‘debian/upstream’ files of the Debian Med
> packaging team. Please do not worry about the ‘debian/upstream-metadata.yaml’
> files.
>
> Since a large share of the ‘debian/upstream’ files are in De
Le Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:39:24PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> I would say: If nobody will insist until after the weekend we might go
> ahead. And for the actual action I agree with Charles that I see no
> problem if James would simply commit a change to Debian Med repositories
> (SVN and
On 13/02/14 00:34, Charles Plessy wrote:
> why not fixing devscripts instead ? Uscan is the tool that is broken, and it
> would take two minutes to fix it. Sorry, but the burden of the work should be
> on the shoulders of the one who did not check the archive contents before
> starting to use a f
Le Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 07:08:44AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > you already have commit access to the Debian Med packages, like all other
> > Debian developers. Please go ahead !
>
> There was adoption of DEP-12 outside of Debian Med a
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> you already have commit access to the Debian Med packages, like all other
> Debian developers. Please go ahead !
There was adoption of DEP-12 outside of Debian Med and also outside
VCS repositories. I think it would be much better to fix t
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:11:41PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:06:42AM -0500, James McCoy a écrit :
> >
> > That being said, I don't have access to most of the packages. Even if I
> > did, it feels "dirty" to go and commit to a couple hundred packages I
> > have
Le Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:06:42AM -0500, James McCoy a écrit :
>
> That being said, I don't have access to most of the packages. Even if I
> did, it feels "dirty" to go and commit to a couple hundred packages I
> have no involvement with instead of adapting two pieces of software to
> deal with
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:04:29PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:39:09PM -0500, James McCoy a écrit :
> >
> > That wasn't clear to me in your previous messages, which is why I
> > presumed you were wanting someone to transition the consumers of the
> > file not the file
Le Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:39:09PM -0500, James McCoy a écrit :
>
> That wasn't clear to me in your previous messages, which is why I
> presumed you were wanting someone to transition the consumers of the
> file not the files themselves. That also seems like it's unnecessary to
> do immediately s
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:08:44AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:38:51PM -0500, James McCoy a écrit :
> >
> > I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm trying to do work towards
> > what I thought you had agreed was an amenable solution as long as
> > someone does the
Le Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:38:51PM -0500, James McCoy a écrit :
>
> I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm trying to do work towards
> what I thought you had agreed was an amenable solution as long as
> someone does the work.
…
> I've stated from the start that I would work on a transition, b
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:21:02AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I wonder whether you have further files in mind which should end up in
> debian/upstream/ dir. Could your please give some reasons why you
> dropped the previously used location, debian/upstream-signing-key.pgp,
Quoting my initial e
Le Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:06:06PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> Thanks. Any helping hand is welcome. I simply want to make sure that
> the thing you are proposing will be really sustainable in the first
> place. The only problem I have with this issue is that changes like
> this should ha
Hi David,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 03:37:54PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Le 10/02/2014 08:36, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> > I wonder in how far it is to late for debian/watch and not for the file
> > debian/upstream. Yey, I'm aware that we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 10/02/2014 08:36, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> I wonder in how far it is to late for debian/watch and not for the file
> debian/upstream. Yey, I'm aware that we have two to three orders of
> magnitude more debian/watch files than debian/upstream fi
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:42:20AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> This change was also suggested by Guillem Jover in
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735840#20 and I tend
> to agree with the logic of grouping upstream related meta-data
> in a single directory.
Quoting this
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Filippo Rusconi wrote:
> I discovered recently that upstream was to become a directory in
> debian/. While I think that such a choice might be a reasonably good
> idea, I have to admit my astonishment at the total absence of
> information/discussion around that matter, fro
Greetings Fellow Developers,
I would like to put here some words that I had in mind since I
discovered the problem with the upstream file/dir in debian/.
It is already a respectable while that we use the debian/upstream
*file* for the documentation of bibliographic data in packages that
might ha
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:07:41PM -0500, James McCoy wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:32:52AM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > James McCoy wrote:
> > >Part of the reason I chose to use debian/upstream/ is that an extensible
> > >location for upstream related information (similar in spirit to
>
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:32:52AM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> James McCoy wrote:
> >Part of the reason I chose to use debian/upstream/ is that an extensible
> >location for upstream related information (similar in spirit to
> >debian/source/) could be useful.
>
> I've really wondered, why you
Hi Paul,
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:18:09PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Another project that looks at DEP-12 metadata is DUCK, the Debian URL
> checker. I think it looks at DEP-12 stuff as a source of URLs to
> check.
Is this some vote to keep the file debian/upstream?
> There are other issues wit
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:32:52AM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> I've really wondered, why you didn't use debian/source/ for this purpose
> and introduced another directory? Why not put the key used to sign the
> upstream source right into debian/source/?
+1
Kind regards
Andreas.
James McCoy wrote:
>In devscripts 2.13.3, uscan gained the ability to verify signature of
>the upstream tarball using a file debian/upstream-signing-key.pgp. In
>2.14.0, I added the ability to use armored keys and decided to move the
>files under debian/upstream/, an idea which had been suggested
Le Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:41:51AM -0500, James McCoy a écrit :
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:18:09PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > There are other issues with uscan/DEP-12;
> >
> > debian/watch is duplicated in the Watch field in DEP-12 debian/upstream.
>
> Partially. DEP-12 assumes it to be a
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:18:09PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Another project that looks at DEP-12 metadata is DUCK, the Debian URL
> checker. I think it looks at DEP-12 stuff as a source of URLs to
> check.
From a quick glance, doesn't seem so.
> In your patch I think you mean [ ! -d $srcfile ] i
Another project that looks at DEP-12 metadata is DUCK, the Debian URL
checker. I think it looks at DEP-12 stuff as a source of URLs to
check.
In your patch I think you mean [ ! -d $srcfile ] instead of -e? The
latter will match if debian/upstream is a dir or a file but I think
you want it to only
Hi all,
In devscripts 2.13.3, uscan gained the ability to verify signature of
the upstream tarball using a file debian/upstream-signing-key.pgp. In
2.14.0, I added the ability to use armored keys and decided to move the
files under debian/upstream/, an idea which had been suggested by a few
peopl
38 matches
Mail list logo
