Am Mittwoch, den 25.05.2011, 14:49 +0200 schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 23:51 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Samstag, den 21.05.2011, 21:41 +0200 schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 00:26 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011,
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 23:51 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Samstag, den 21.05.2011, 21:41 +0200 schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 00:26 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 12:26 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Benjamin
Am Samstag, den 21.05.2011, 21:41 +0200 schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 00:26 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 12:26 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Benjamin Drung bdr...@debian.org wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011,
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 00:26 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 12:26 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Benjamin Drung bdr...@debian.org wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 00:05 + schrieb Roger Leigh:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:01:12PM
On 12/03/2011 12:51, Benjamin Drung wrote:
pull-debian-source (?)
apt-get source $src ?
Not really, because for apt-get source $src you need an entry in your
sources.list. With pull-debian-source $src experimental you get the
experimental package, with pull-debian-source $src lenny you get
Am Freitag, den 11.03.2011, 00:18 +0100 schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:15:22PM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
James Vega seems to be the most active devscripts maintainer these days,
and he does this (as far as I know) in his spare time. If he does not
want to have
Am Donnerstag, den 10.03.2011, 14:34 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
Also, considering we are talking about Python and not, say, my beloved
OCaml, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that among active Debian
developers we
Am Donnerstag, den 10.03.2011, 18:32 +0100 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy:
On 08/03/2011 23:01, Benjamin Drung wrote:
check-symbols
I always hated programs that do sudo (and even more those doing it
*twice*). And, isn't just unpacking the .deb and checking for .so
there enough? You could have
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:51:50 -0800
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:32:28PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
get-build-deps
Is this an alias for apt-get build-dep $1?
No, it's a tool that's been long missing from a Debian as a standard
interface - install
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:32:27 -0800
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
FWIW, mk-build-deps is close, but not exactly what I'm looking for
personally. I really want a command that, without needing to specify any
extra options, does 'mk-build-deps -i -r debian/control', because I think
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 11.03.2011, 09:58 + schrieb Neil Williams:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:51:50 -0800
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:32:28PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
get-build-deps
Is this an alias for apt-get build-dep $1?
No, it's a tool
On 11/03/2011 11:11, Joachim Breitner wrote:
There is also this in haskell-debian-utils, although not very widely
advocated:
* apt-get-build-depends:
Tool which will parse the Build-Depends{-Indep} lines from debian/control
and apt-get install the required packages
see
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
udt-* for all applicable *, where udt stands for ubuntu-dev-tools.
[...]
udt-mk-sbuild
This command creates a schroot with a named debian or ubuntu release,
and adds a useful section to schroot.conf. Adding udt- does not make
it any less
Benjamin Drung writes (Re: new scripts and patches for devscripts):
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 22:28 + schrieb Ian Jackson:
udt-* for all applicable *, where udt stands for ubuntu-dev-tools.
Why? These scripts are not ubuntu specific.
To distinguish them from any other scripts
On 03/09/2011 01:05 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
Most of the script are written in Python. Rewriting them to get them
included in devscripts is too much work without benefit. devscripts
would depend on python then.
Most of the scripts are short. Rewriting would be fairly simple, and
may be
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote:
On 03/09/2011 01:05 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
Most of the script are written in Python. Rewriting them to get them
included in devscripts is too much work without benefit. devscripts
would depend on python then.
Most of the
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 11:28 -0500, James Vega wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote:
On 03/09/2011 01:05 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
Most of the script are written in Python. Rewriting them to get them
included in devscripts is too much work without benefit.
On to, 2011-03-10 at 11:28 -0500, James Vega wrote:
I also think that going off and writing scripts in Python when one knows
that devscripts is a Perl and shell project is the wrong way to try to
contribute. One generally tries to work with a project, not write a lot
of code in a language the
On 08/03/2011 23:01, Benjamin Drung wrote:
check-symbols
I always hated programs that do sudo (and even more those doing it
*twice*). And, isn't just unpacking the .deb and checking for .so
there enough? You could have undefined symbols… but that may not be
an issue most of the time, IMO.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 04:46:01PM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I suspect most people who want to add something to devscripts don't
start off by deciding that they want to do that. Instead they have an
itch they want to scratch, they write something quick to get fix that,
and then realize that
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:32:28PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
get-build-deps
Is this an alias for apt-get build-dep $1?
No, it's a tool that's been long missing from a Debian as a standard
interface - install the build-dependencies for the package in my current
directory.
This may not be the
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2011-03-10 18:48 +0100]:
The argument of maintenance burden is in general a valid one, but IME
maintenance burden in devscripts is more limited by the amount of
people who are interested in maintaining a specific (dev)script than
by the needed language knowledge. ...
To
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
Also, considering we are talking about Python and not, say, my beloved
OCaml, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that among active Debian
developers we have nowadays more Python knowledge than Perl knowledge
(but I'm
On 2011-03-10, Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org wrote:
One way to have both, all members of the devscripts team keep their
current vim in maintaining it, and not wasting the potential developer
resources of these two DDs, could be the following:
Package: devscripts
Maintainer: Devscripts
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:51:50 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
get-build-deps
Is this an alias for apt-get build-dep $1?
No, it's a tool that's been long missing from a Debian as a standard
interface - install the build-dependencies for the package in my current
directory.
Sounds similar to
Hi James (2011.03.10_21:34:51_+0200)
I completely agree that rewriting the tools isn't a useful effort. I
was more concerned that there had been significant development done on
scripts that were intended to be proposed to devscripts and yet were
intentionally being written in a language that
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:48:21 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
To conclude with an obvious argument, rewriting useful tools which are
known to work and which are currently maintained by a derived distro,
when they are already written in a popular language, doesn't seem to be
the smartest thing
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:50:57PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:51:50 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
get-build-deps
Is this an alias for apt-get build-dep $1?
No, it's a tool that's been long missing from a Debian as a standard
interface - install the
On 03/10/2011 10:32 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:50:57PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:51:50 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
get-build-deps
Is this an alias for apt-get build-dep $1?
No, it's a tool that's been long missing from a Debian as a
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:15:22PM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
James Vega seems to be the most active devscripts maintainer these days,
and he does this (as far as I know) in his spare time. If he does not
want to have python scripts in it, I see no justification to force him
to do so. I also
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:34:51PM -0500, James Vega wrote:
I completely agree that rewriting the tools isn't a useful effort. I
was more concerned that there had been significant development done on
scripts that were intended to be proposed to devscripts and yet were
intentionally being
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2011-03-11 00:18 +0100]:
First of all, I'm not sure anymore that I see the point of discussing
the *language issue* in a circle larger than the devscripts
maintainers. ... The language issue should probably be a decision
within the devscripts team, together with the
Benjamin Drung writes (new scripts and patches for devscripts):
1. ubuntu-dev-tools contains a bunch of scripts. Some of them are useful
only for Ubuntu, but some of them are general usable for packaging.
These scripts are:
add-patch
check-symbols
cowbuilder-dist
debian-distro-info
distro
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 16:42 + schrieb Ian Jackson:
Benjamin Drung writes (new scripts and patches for devscripts):
1. ubuntu-dev-tools contains a bunch of scripts. Some of them are useful
only for Ubuntu, but some of them are general usable for packaging.
These scripts
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Benjamin Drung bdr...@debian.org wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 00:05 + schrieb Roger Leigh:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:01:12PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Should these script moved from ubuntu-dev-tools into devscripts?
Most of the script are
Benjamin Drung writes (Re: new scripts and patches for devscripts):
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 16:42 + schrieb Ian Jackson:
add-patch
check-symbols
cowbuilder-dist
debian-distro-info
distro-info
edit-patch
get-build-deps
merge-changelog
mk-sbuild
pbuilder-dist
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 12:26 -0500 schrieb James Vega:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Benjamin Drung bdr...@debian.org wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 00:05 + schrieb Roger Leigh:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:01:12PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Should these script moved from
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 22:28 + schrieb Ian Jackson:
Benjamin Drung writes (Re: new scripts and patches for devscripts):
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 16:42 + schrieb Ian Jackson:
add-patch
check-symbols
cowbuilder-dist
debian-distro-info
distro-info
edit
Hi,
I have two topics I like to discuss:
1. ubuntu-dev-tools contains a bunch of scripts. Some of them are useful
only for Ubuntu, but some of them are general usable for packaging.
These scripts are:
add-patch
check-symbols
cowbuilder-dist
debian-distro-info
distro-info
edit-patch
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:01:12PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
1. ubuntu-dev-tools contains a bunch of scripts. Some of them are useful
only for Ubuntu, but some of them are general usable for packaging.
These scripts are:
mk-sbuild
Speaking just for this script, it's a user-friendly
Am Mittwoch, den 09.03.2011, 00:05 + schrieb Roger Leigh:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:01:12PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
1. ubuntu-dev-tools contains a bunch of scripts. Some of them are useful
only for Ubuntu, but some of them are general usable for packaging.
These scripts are:
41 matches
Mail list logo
