On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 02:27:58PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > > > > I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
> > > > What's the point/advantage of native packages?
> > > No need to make a separate orig tarball.
>
> the irony here is that native packages also require an upstream tarball,
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 03:13:17PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> > > > > I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
> > > What's the point/advantage of native packages?
> > No need to make a separate orig tarball.
the irony here is that native packages also require an upstream tarball,
it's just that
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> […] in my lintian fork […]
I got around to releasing Lintian 2.13.0 to unstable earlier today including
your suggested changes (so hopefully you can drop your fork for the time
being).
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'`
Hi Andreas
> My point is simply: As long as the released lintian does not find the
> said issue - how can I file a sensible bug report the lintian authors
> will consider an issue? I totally welcome if you would file a more
> qualified bug report with the insight you have proven in this thread
> "Marco" == Marco d'Itri writes:
Marco> On Apr 15, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> However if my sources are in git, git is the definitive format
>> for thinking about things, and the dsc I'm producing is only for
>> the convenience of the archive, I don't want to deal with an
>>
On 16/04/19 at 15:55 +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 13.04.19 10:20, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
> > https://trends.debian.net/#smells
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Following this blog post[1] I did some work on setting up a proper
> > framework
On 2019/04/16 21:51, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I'm not sure if I should say thanks, or just hide myself behind the
> wall, considering how much work there would be to fix all of these
> packages that I need to fix... :/
Heh, that's exactly why these graphs are so great! Rome wasn't built in
a day
On 4/13/19 10:20 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
> https://trends.debian.net/#smells
>
> Hi,
>
> Following this blog post[1] I did some work on setting up a proper
> framework to graph historical trends about Debian packaging practices.
> The result is now
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 01:57:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> > Similarly
> >
> > prottest (U) should switch to dh. Current build system:
> > debhelper (source version: 3.4.2+dfsg-3)
> > python-pyfaidx (U) should switch to dh. Current build system:
> > debhelper (source
Andreas Tille:
> Hi Niels,
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:54:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>> speaking about false positives:
>>>
>>>libhmsbeagle (U) should switch to dh. Current build system:
>>> debhelper (source version: 3.1.2+dfsg-5)
>>>
>>> I have no idea what might have
On 13.04.19 10:20, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
> https://trends.debian.net/#smells
>
> Hi,
>
> Following this blog post[1] I did some work on setting up a proper
> framework to graph historical trends about Debian packaging practices.
> The result is now
Hi Niels,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:54:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > speaking about false positives:
> >
> >libhmsbeagle (U) should switch to dh. Current build system:
> > debhelper (source version: 3.1.2+dfsg-5)
> >
> > I have no idea what might have triggered this on the
Andreas Tille:
> Hi again,
>
> speaking about false positives:
>
>libhmsbeagle (U) should switch to dh. Current build system:
> debhelper (source version: 3.1.2+dfsg-5)
>
> I have no idea what might have triggered this on the current d/rules
> file[1].
>
> Kind regards
>
>
Hi again,
speaking about false positives:
libhmsbeagle (U) should switch to dh. Current build system:
debhelper (source version: 3.1.2+dfsg-5)
I have no idea what might have triggered this on the current d/rules
file[1].
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1]
Lucas Nussbaum:
> On 16/04/19 at 08:52 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 05:35:40PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 04:55:12PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
biococoa (U) does not use Debhelper (no compat level found)
(source
On 16/04/19 at 08:52 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 05:35:40PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 04:55:12PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > biococoa (U) does not use Debhelper (no compat level found)
> > > (source version: 2.2.2-4)
> > >
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 05:35:40PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 04:55:12PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > biococoa (U) does not use Debhelper (no compat level found)
> > (source version: 2.2.2-4)
> > biococoa (U) should switch to dh. Current build
Hi,
On 15.04.19 21:23, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Generating an upstream tarball in this case is still useful because this
> way we do not need to upload and store forever the full source archive
> every time that something changes only in the packaging.
That, and upstream tarballs generated with
On Apr 15, Sam Hartman wrote:
> However if my sources are in git, git is the definitive format for
> thinking about things, and the dsc I'm producing is only for the
> convenience of the archive, I don't want to deal with an upstream
> tarball.
Generating an upstream tarball in this case is
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:48:01PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 10:04:10 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> > I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native). The main advantage
>> of 3.0 (native) is that it makes
On 15/04/19 at 16:55 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Are you sure that you are not tricked by false positives from lintian?
I might be, but if lintian reports something incorrectly about your
package, it's probably worth fixing in lintian.
Lucas
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 04:55:12PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> biococoa (U) does not use Debhelper (no compat level found)
> (source version: 2.2.2-4)
> biococoa (U) should switch to dh. Current build system: cdbs
> (source version: 2.2.2-4)
| % grep cdbs -r
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 03:46:57PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 10:20:53 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
> > https://trends.debian.net/#smells
>
> Very nice, thank you.
+1
I like it a lot!
> > [4]
On Apr 13, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
Nice.
I suggest to add a graph detailing:
- packages with at least one init script
- packages with at least one systemd unit
- packages with at least one init script and one systemd unit
Also, did I miss the memo about
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 10:20:53 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
> https://trends.debian.net/#smells
Very nice, thank you.
> [4] https://trends.debian.net/smells-dd-list.txt
This list is slightly unhelpful (for my case / the Debian Perl Group)
as it reports
On 13.04.19 15:07, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:59:19PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
What's the point/advantage of native packages?
No need to make a separate orig tarball.
Can't agree more, there are places where 3.0
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:59:19PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
> > The main advantage of 3.0 (native) is that it makes it explicit that
> > the package is deliberately native [...]
>
> ok, sorry, I ment to say: I see no point whatsoever in native
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:48:01PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 10:04:10 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
> The main advantage of 3.0 (native) is that it makes it explicit that
> the package is deliberately native [...]
ok, sorry,
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 10:04:10 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
The main advantage of 3.0 (native) is that it makes it explicit that
the package is deliberately native, whereas a 1.0 native package is
indistinguishable from a package that was intended to
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 10:20:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> https://trends.debian.net/#smells
there are two minor issues with the smells *graph*: not using salsa
should only be graphed since salsa exists (and not since 2005), same for
compat < 9.
--
tschau,
Holger
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 4:21 PM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
> https://trends.debian.net/#smells
>
These graphs look ambiguous... Shouldn't the x-axis be year?
--
Shengjing Zhu
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 11:42:38AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Well you could switch to 3.0 (native).
I see no point whatsoever in 3.0 (native).
IMO 3.0 (quilt) is sensible and 1.0 too, whether native or not. *If*
native package in todays world are still sensible...
> > But you don't
On 13/04/19 at 09:28 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 10:20:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
> > https://trends.debian.net/#smells
>
> that's beautiful! thank you!
>
> > [4]
Hi Lucas,
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 10:20:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
> https://trends.debian.net/#smells
that's beautiful! thank you!
> [4] https://trends.debian.net/smells-dd-list.txt
for me there are two smelly packages, src:tuxtype should use
On 4/13/19 10:20 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Additionally (and much more controversially I guess :-) ) I also added
> an analysis of "package smells"[3], such as "not using dh", "not using a
> recent debhelper compat level", "not using a 3.0 source format", etc. I
> understand that in some cases
TL;DR: see https://trends.debian.net and
https://trends.debian.net/#smells
Hi,
Following this blog post[1] I did some work on setting up a proper
framework to graph historical trends about Debian packaging practices.
The result is now available at [2], and I'm confident that I will be
able to
36 matches
Mail list logo
