On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:37:14 +0100, Miriam Ruiz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My personal position about this, as well as the current policy for the
packages maintained by the Games Team, is to have simultaneously both
the new Homepage header as well as the old pseudo-field in the
description for a
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 05:55:43PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
May I point you to http://wiki.debian.org/DpkgHomepageFieldTransition ?
Yes, and thanks for this. As it was evident, I was not aware of that
page. And thanks to Russ for mentioning my stats there.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli
* Christian Perrier [Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:55:43 +0100]:
IIRC (I can't check online right now), it was agreed that a lintian
check would help a lot *before* the MBF, in order to minimize the size
of the MBF.
Yeah, such test already exists, but it's an Info:, not a Warning:
(that's what Russ
2007/11/30, Bernd Zeimetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
for a backport you have to add a changelog entry anyway, fixing the
Homepage field is not that complicated, so I can't see a problem here.
So your suggestion is to remove the pseudo-field from the description
now? If it is so, please say, so we can
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:10:49PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Backports. Old dpkgs will ignore the Homepage field.
Ermm .. ok, but (general question) do we really want to slow-down the
spreading of some best practice to not hinder backport-ability? After
all
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 04:03:34PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
Stefano, why your d-d alias says Debian Devel Italian ML? ;-)
Because I messed up my headers before sending the mail :-)
While my packages are not false positive if we consider the version in
the archive, they're false positive if
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:10:49PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Backports. Old dpkgs will ignore the Homepage field.
Ermm .. ok, but (general question) do we really want to slow-down the
spreading of some best practice to not hinder backport-ability? After
all backports is not an official part
Hi all!
Stefano, why your d-d alias says Debian Devel Italian ML? ;-)
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:30:55 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
There should be all the info needed for a wish-list mass-bug filing
([1] is a direct link to a dd-list, so that people can check for false
positives),
[1]
Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi, at http://sockmel.bononia.it/~zack/homepage-field/ I'm collecting
some numbers about the usage of the new homepage field in debian/control
vs that of the old pseudo-field in package description.
There should be all the info needed for a
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 01:37:14PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
My personal position about this, as well as the current policy for the
packages maintained by the Games Team, is to have simultaneously both
the new Homepage header as well as the old pseudo-field in the
I really do not see the point
2007/11/30, Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi, at http://sockmel.bononia.it/~zack/homepage-field/ I'm collecting
some numbers about the usage of the new homepage field in debian/control
vs that of the old pseudo-field in package description.
There should be all the info needed for a
2007/11/30, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Miriam Ruiz [Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:38:30 +0100]:
So your suggestion is to remove the pseudo-field from the description
now? If it is so, please say, so we can move towards there :)
Yes, that'd be the suggestion.
Thanks Dato, we'll review the
* Stefano Zacchiroli [Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:05:11 +0100]:
So, what are the cases where a package with the new field would need to
have also the old pseudo-field to avoid risking that the information is
not shown?
Backports. Old dpkgs will ignore the Homepage field.
--
Adeodato Simó
On 30/11/2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
My personal position about this, as well as the current policy for the
packages maintained by the Games Team, is to have simultaneously both
the new Homepage header as well as the old pseudo-field in the
description for a while, until the former is started to
Hi, at http://sockmel.bononia.it/~zack/homepage-field/ I'm collecting
some numbers about the usage of the new homepage field in debian/control
vs that of the old pseudo-field in package description.
There should be all the info needed for a wish-list mass-bug filing ([1]
is a direct link to a
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:03:34 +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
While my packages are not false positive if we consider the version in
the archive, they're false positive if we consider the Debian VCS
version.
Same here (both for my own packages and for all packages of the
pkg-perl group).
Cheers,
* Miriam Ruiz [Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:38:30 +0100]:
So your suggestion is to remove the pseudo-field from the description
now? If it is so, please say, so we can move towards there :)
Yes, that'd be the suggestion.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Christian Perrier [Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:55:43 +0100]:
IIRC (I can't check online right now), it was agreed that a lintian
check would help a lot *before* the MBF, in order to minimize the size
of the MBF.
Yeah, such test already exists, but it's an
Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi, at http://sockmel.bononia.it/~zack/homepage-field/ I'm collecting
some numbers about the usage of the new homepage field in debian/control
vs that of the old pseudo-field in package description.
There should be all the info needed for a
19 matches
Mail list logo
