On Wed, Sep 23 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> And that, I think, may serve as a guiding criteria for whether
>> one should make a package native or not. With my native packages
>> (kernel-package, ucf, and devotee), I do not _have_ an upstrem process,
>>
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> And that, I think, may serve as a guiding criteria for whether
> one should make a package native or not. With my native packages
> (kernel-package, ucf, and devotee), I do not _have_ an upstrem process,
> nor an upstream "distribution" or tarball; and thus ther
On Wed, Sep 23 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>
>> If upstream == maintainer then why would there ever be an upstream
>> release without a debian release?
>
> It's rare for there to be an upstream release without a Debian release,
> although it can happen during freezes
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> If upstream == maintainer then why would there ever be an upstream
> release without a debian release?
It's rare for there to be an upstream release without a Debian release,
although it can happen during freezes or with frequent dev releases. It's
very, very comm
Jonathan Yu writes:
> I agree that debian/ files likely don't cause a "whole lot of trouble"
> to us (it should only be a line to remove it using debian/rules prior
> to building? but I'm not 100% sure on that). However, I don't think
> that it not being tremendously burdensome on us in Debian is
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:46:08AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>>> On native package the debian/changelog is also used for upstream
>>> changelog: upstreams tend to package their packages as native.
>> [...]
>>> Thus non debian spe
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:51:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
What I'm trying to discuss here is that Debian Developers who package
their own software as Debian native packages should be allowed to do so
Hi Wouter and everybody,
it seems to me that the difficulties
Le Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:51:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
>
> What I'm trying to discuss here is that Debian Developers who package
> their own software as Debian native packages should be allowed to do so
Hi Wouter and everybody,
it seems to me that the difficulties in this discussion
Sigh.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:25:39AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >That doesn't follow. You're assuming it's going to be impossible to keep
> >the original debian/changelog file, and/or that the only way to package
> >something that an upstream has packaged as
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:25:39AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> But if we pack as non-native (as it should be: we are not upstream),
> more problems arises:
> we cannot patch anymore debian directory: on 3.0 source format
> the original debian dir will disappear, thus removing the
> debian/
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:46:08AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
On native package the debian/changelog is also used for upstream
changelog: upstreams tend to package their packages as native.
[...]
Thus non debian specific package, which are also native,
should (mu
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:46:08AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> On native package the debian/changelog is also used for upstream
> changelog: upstreams tend to package their packages as native.
[...]
> Thus non debian specific package, which are also native,
> should (must on GPL licensed p
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Wouter Verhelst writes:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:22:30AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
We have a lot of troubles when upstreams ship a debian/ directory
in upstream tarball, thus I'll expect derivatives will have similar
problems
I don't see it that way.
T
I agree that debian/ files likely don't cause a "whole lot of trouble"
to us (it should only be a line to remove it using debian/rules prior
to building? but I'm not 100% sure on that). However, I don't think
that it not being tremendously burdensome on us in Debian is
sufficient justification to p
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:22:30AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>> We have a lot of troubles when upstreams ship a debian/ directory
>> in upstream tarball, thus I'll expect derivatives will have similar
>> problems
>
> I don't see it that way.
>
> The reason why w
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:22:30AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> We have a lot of troubles when upstreams ship a debian/ directory
> in upstream tarball, thus I'll expect derivatives will have similar
> problems
I don't see it that way.
The reason why we have 'a lot of troubles' when upstr
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I also would rather have a native package in Debian and then have
Debian derivatives convert the package using Debians tar.gz as
orig.tar.gz and put their derivate specific changes into diff.gz.
Shipping a source with 0 byte diff.gz in Debian seems stupid and
shippin
Joey Hess writes:
> Charles Plessy:
>> At least one of the consequences of being native is that the package gets all
>> its gettext and manpages translations for free from Debian. In the case of
>> programs like ikiwiki [..]
>
> AFAIK, any translator from Debian who has translated ikiwiki's gette
Charles Plessy:
> At least one of the consequences of being native is that the package gets all
> its gettext and manpages translations for free from Debian. In the case of
> programs like ikiwiki [..]
AFAIK, any translator from Debian who has translated ikiwiki's gettext
or underlays (no man page
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> I feel I should point out that my initial mail in this subthread was a
> reaction to a one-line statement that 'switching upstreams does not
> make a package native.' That I objected to, because of the lack of
> context, and the inherent feeling that, to me, seemed to be
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:04:49PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > True. However, if something is not explicitly forbidden by Policy (and
> > this isn't), and it does not cause (obvious) harm to Debian as a whole
> > (which this doesn't), there is no good reason why people shou
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 01:31:40AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Charles Plessy writes:
>>> Le Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 12:47:44PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
I know it is fancy and modern to think that Debian native packages
should only be used for things that ar
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 01:31:40AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Charles Plessy writes:
> > Le Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 12:47:44PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > > I know it is fancy and modern to think that Debian native packages
> > > should only be used for things that are specific to the Debian
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 12:47:44PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > I know it is fancy and modern to think that Debian native packages
> > should only be used for things that are specific to the Debian
> > infrastructure, but there is nothing in policy that requires t
Le Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 12:47:44PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
>
> I know it is fancy and modern to think that Debian native packages
> should only be used for things that are specific to the Debian
> infrastructure, but there is nothing in policy that requires that, and
> indeed several pack
25 matches
Mail list logo
