Joachim Breitner wrote:
> I’d like to explain with a bit more detail why I prefer debian/-only
> packaging. If you have read such arguing before, feel free to skip that
> part (→ End of arguing).
An interesting point of view, well elucidated.
It may somewhat fall apart when you consider what is t
Hi again,
the thread has ebbed away, so it seems that most opinions have been
expressed.
No single voice was raised in favor of Darcs. Doesn’t surprise me :-)
But there were more calls for a standard packaging approach than I
expected. If I read it correctly, Erik liked my approach, Clint had no
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 08.04.2014, 10:26 -0300 schrieb Raúl Benencia:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 11:32:31AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Took me longer than anticipated, but packaging a new package is a bit
> > more work, and I had to do a few round trips to get the
> > gtk2hs-buil
Hello,
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 11:32:31AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Took me longer than anticipated, but packaging a new package is a bit
> more work, and I had to do a few round trips to get the
> gtk2hs-buildtools story right.
Thanks for such a detailed workflow! If it wasn't about to c
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 09:25:41AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> And do you have an opinion on the workflow? Do you prefer the current
> debian/-only repositories, or would you rather like to work on
> full-fledged upstream-included git repositories? In the latter case,
> git-buildpackage or git
Hi *,
I use git-buildpackage on almost all the packages I comaintain
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=costamagnagianfranco%40yahoo.it
boinc, boinc-app-seti, hedgewars are three that comes quickly in my mind.
Gianfranco
Il Lunedì 7 Aprile 2014 12:56, Colin Watson ha scritto:
On Mon,
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:31:11PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > In fact, git-dpm was what finally sold me on converting all my packages
> > to git. For me, it's streets ahead of previous methods of managing
> > Debian patches in revision control in the same way that
Colin Watson wrote:
> In fact, git-dpm was what finally sold me on converting all my packages
> to git. For me, it's streets ahead of previous methods of managing
> Debian patches in revision control in the same way that 3.0 (quilt) was
> streets ahead of the various older build-time patch system
Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 06.04.2014, 22:58 + schrieb Clint Adams:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > should we switch to git? After all, git has won™.
>
> Sounds good to me. I still don't get along with darcs.
Sorry to hear that.
And do
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> should we switch to git? After all, git has won™.
Sounds good to me. I still don't get along with darcs.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-haskell-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
Hi,
I’ll reply to other points on this thread later, when more opinions are
in (especially from Clint, who is a major contributor in the DHG), but
I’d like to quickly adress
Am Sonntag, den 06.04.2014, 23:37 +0100 schrieb Colin Watson:
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 01:13:16PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 01:13:16PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I advise against using git in some nonstandard way, such as only checking
> debian/ into the debian git repositories. There is a very wide range of
> tools for managing packages with git, and making this choice will close
> off using many
Joey Hess writes:
> I advise against using git in some nonstandard way, such as only
> checking debian/ into the debian git repositories. There is a very
> wide range of tools for managing packages with git, and making this
> choice will close off using many of those tools, or require using them
>
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 01:13:16PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'd welcome a switch to git.
+1…
> I advise against using git in some nonstandard way, such as only checking
> debian/ into the debian git repositories. There is a very wide range of
> tools for managing packages with git, and making th
I'd welcome a switch to git.
I advise against using git in some nonstandard way, such as only checking
debian/ into the debian git repositories. There is a very wide range of
tools for managing packages with git, and making this choice will close
off using many of those tools, or require using the
Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 06.04.2014, 11:13 +1000 schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
> > PS: If above description of the workflow is news to you, maybe I need to
> > talk more about it.
>
> Yes.
Ok, let me just log how I update the gtk packages. It’s 10:27 now :-)
# Update the planning repo
$ cd debian/pkg
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> should we switch to git? After all, git has won™.
Yes.
> What changed my mind?
> I noticed that it is not so much darcs vs. git that I’m concerned about,
> but rather workflows and repository layouts. I really dislike the
> git-buildpackage’s approach
Hi team,
should we switch to git? After all, git has won™.
What changed my mind?
I noticed that it is not so much darcs vs. git that I’m concerned about,
but rather workflows and repository layouts. I really dislike the
git-buildpackage’s approach. It might be suitable for one or few
complicated
18 matches
Mail list logo
