Le Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:56:07AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> In the case of the initial copryight review, which is if I understand well the
> strongest objection, wouldn't it be solved if the first upload to Debian would
> contain as few history as possible ? Then the quantity of histor
"Thijs Kinkhorst" writes:
> On Mon, January 16, 2012 23:26, Paul Wise wrote:
>>> I just wanted to ask how mature Package-format 3.0 (git) became until
>>> now.
>>
>> It is not currently accepted by the Debian archive:
>>
>> http://bugs.deb
On Mon, January 16, 2012 23:26, Paul Wise wrote:
>> I just wanted to ask how mature Package-format 3.0 (git) became until
>> now.
>
> It is not currently accepted by the Debian archive:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/642801
My experience until now is that it's mature
2012/1/17 Björn Esser:
> I just wanted to ask how mature Package-format 3.0 (git) became until now.
It is not currently accepted by the Debian archive:
http://bugs.debian.org/642801
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi there!
I just wanted to ask how mature Package-format 3.0 (git) became until now.
BR,
Björn.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Dear FTP team,
There are now 4,921 source packages maintained in Git repositories
(http://upsilon.cc/~zack/stuff/vcs-usage/), and for some of them the
dpkg-source format 3.0 (git), for which support is available in Squeeze, would
be natural and
]] Steve Langasek
| > Given I maintain my packages in git, it's quite clear that the preferred
| > form for modification of my packages is through git and not debian
| > source packages. That we don't have a good way of distributing the
| > source of packages is a fault I think we should address
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, Charles Plessy wrote:
> If in a large number of cases where one would like to turn off the patch
> system
> of the 3.0 (quilt) format, the source package is stored in a Git repository,
> then one way to move forward would be to make the format 3.0 (git) available
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> If in a large number of cases where one would like to turn off the patch
> system
> of the 3.0 (quilt) format, the source package is stored in a Git repository,
> then one way to move forward would be to make the format 3.0 (gi
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> - Debian is about freedom.
> - Debian is about giving back.
Well! It's very interesting to have work that I have done, in the vain
hope of somehow finding another way to make Debian better, elicit
push-back like this. I suppose this will influence me some way or other,
ca
]] "Bernhard R. Link"
| * Tollef Fog Heen [110924 16:16]:
| > I find reviewing what's changed between two arbitrary versions in git
| > much easier than doing the same with debian source packages, so I think
| > it's pretty clear this is a matter of preference.
|
| But if it is some other versi
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 04:16:21PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | - Debian is about freedom. Freedom in software is about about enabling
> | people to "scratch their itch", to modify the software to suite their
> | need and what they consider best for them.
> Yes, and to continue that threa
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Michael Gilbert [110924 20:24]:
> > Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> >
> > > * Tollef Fog Heen [110924 16:16]:
> > > > I find reviewing what's changed between two arbitrary versions in git
> > > > much easier than doing the same with debian source packages, so I think
> > >
* Michael Gilbert [110924 20:24]:
> Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>
> > * Tollef Fog Heen [110924 16:16]:
> > > I find reviewing what's changed between two arbitrary versions in git
> > > much easier than doing the same with debian source packages, so I think
> > > it's pretty clear this is a matter of
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Tollef Fog Heen [110924 16:16]:
> > I find reviewing what's changed between two arbitrary versions in git
> > much easier than doing the same with debian source packages, so I think
> > it's pretty clear this is a matter of preference.
>
> But if it is some other vers
* Tollef Fog Heen [110924 16:16]:
> I find reviewing what's changed between two arbitrary versions in git
> much easier than doing the same with debian source packages, so I think
> it's pretty clear this is a matter of preference.
But if it is some other version control system, which is easier t
* Timo Juhani Lindfors [110924 12:17]:
> I always just alien --to-tgz the SRPM and then I see each patch as a
> separate file.
Ever tried to install rpm on a system you do not have root on?
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Format 3.0 (git)"):
> I don't put much weight on the «it should be simple to hack on packages
> and VCSes make it hard» argument. IME, there are many more people who
> know how to drive git than there are people who know how to usefully
&
]] "Bernhard R. Link"
| * Charles Plessy [110924 08:30]:
| > If in a large number of cases where one would like to turn off the patch
system
| > of the 3.0 (quilt) format, the source package is stored in a Git repository,
| > then one way to move forward would be to make
Hi Bernhard.
If I may briefly summarise your objections against the source format 3.0 (git):
1) It increases the risk of distributing non-free files.
2) It reduces our user's freedom to modify the software we redistribute,
because they may not be comfortable with git.
3) Compared t
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> It has been better at that than rpm where you always look for
> another perl script in the net that is able to make a cpio out of
> that version of source rpm you run into, so you can actually look at
> what they do.
I always just alien --to-tgz the SRPM and t
* Charles Plessy [110924 08:30]:
> If in a large number of cases where one would like to turn off the patch
> system
> of the 3.0 (quilt) format, the source package is stored in a Git repository,
> then one way to move forward would be to make the format 3.0 (git) available
> i
Hello everybody,
If in a large number of cases where one would like to turn off the patch system
of the 3.0 (quilt) format, the source package is stored in a Git repository,
then one way to move forward would be to make the format 3.0 (git) available
in Debian. What are the blocking points
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> in echo to Raphaël's question about the use of a VCS together with the 3.0
> (quilt) format, I was just wondering, what is needed to have 3.0 (git)
> acceptable in Debian, and how can we solve this ?
IIRC, there was a B
Hello everybody,
in echo to Raphaël's question about the use of a VCS together with the 3.0
(quilt) format, I was just wondering, what is needed to have 3.0 (git)
acceptable in Debian, and how can we solve this ?
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> For usability: I imagine what is typically needed is the set of Vcs-Git
> fields somewhere conveniently machine-readable, so one could just go
>
> apt-get source --git whatever
>
> and get a checkout of its packaging repository.
... which is what debcheckout provi
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> 1) Think about doing this for linux-2.6, XOrg or OOo and what it would
>> mean for the source size or usability.
>
> Indeed, the history is pretty large. A rough estimate (for something
> less rough, one should use a well packed bundle w
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> 1) Think about doing this for linux-2.6, XOrg or OOo and what it would
> mean for the source size or usability.
Indeed, the history is pretty large. A rough estimate (for something
less rough, one should use a well packed bundle with only the objects
of interest):
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
>> Given the size of the .git dir when you're not using something like stgit
>> and have all objects properly packed, one could even consider shipping .git
>> inside the package if it is small enough.
>>
>> Is that a proper way to do
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Given the size of the .git dir when you're not using something like stgit
> and have all objects properly packed, one could even consider shipping .git
> inside the package if it is small enough.
>
> Is that a proper way to do this? Or would we need a new 3.0
30 matches
Mail list logo
