On 07/09/2011 10:30 PM, Leo "costela" Antunes wrote:
>
> [ lots of valid arguments ]
>
>
I think you got me (at least partly) convince on the short dh style.
However, I reamain convince that Jakub's point to not nitpicking
new comers on the dh versus dh_* style is very valid.
Thanks for the in
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> My point to give arguments about not using dh was *not* to start a troll
> thread about what is best practices. It was simply to tell that there
> are some arguments for and against using dh, and as a consequence, I
> found very bad to write in this list
On 09/07/11 13:53, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> If you are writing that using dh is more easy than using "normal" debhelper,
> then I don't agree, it's not always the case. I've seen many overly
> complicated
> packages with tons of dh_overwrite_* stuff, which makes the work flow very
> complicated and
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, in my opinion (some of) these things are "good". But
> making a big fuss about them is not helping anybody. It only distracts
> attention from things that are important, and creates false impression that
> they are somehow cru
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 07/09/2011 05:14 AM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> I believe that when someone knows the underlying system, using helpers
>> is the way to go, because it makes not only your task easier, it also
>> makes it easier for others to understand the packaging.
>>
> We were talkin
On 07/09/2011 05:14 AM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> I believe that when someone knows the underlying system, using helpers
> is the way to go, because it makes not only your task easier, it also
> makes it easier for others to understand the packaging.
>
We were talking about mentoring, and you are ta
On 07/09/2011 05:41 AM, Leo "costela" Antunes wrote:
> On 08/07/11 22:23, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> On 07/08/2011 08:47 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
>>
>>> Right now, the general consensus is the dh and cdbs produce
>>> debian packages that are easier to maintain in the long run (if the
>>> spo
* Leo costela Antunes [110708 23:41]:
> Please use dh/cdbs/whatever other means necessary to make your packaging
> work easy to read and understand. Don't make the packaging more complex
> for other people just because you want to "know what's going on".
But please also do not use anything you do
Scott Howard wrote:
> From the debhelper manpage
>
> "Unless otherwise indicated, all debhelper documentation assumes that
> you are using the most recent compatibility level, and in most cases
> does not indicate if the behavior is different in an earlier
> compatibility level, so if you are not
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 04:23:05AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 07/08/2011 08:47 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> > Right now, the general consensus is the dh and cdbs produce
> > debian packages that are easier to maintain in the long run (if the
> > sponsor has to take over maintenance of the packa
On Saturday, July 09, 2011 12:41:09 AM Leo "costela" Antunes wrote:
> On 08/07/11 22:23, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 07/08/2011 08:47 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> >> Right now, the general consensus is the dh and cdbs produce
> >> debian packages that are easier to maintain in the long run (if the
>
On 07/08/2011 12:29 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 08.07.2011 18:24, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> If you don't make use of newest shiniest features, higher debhelper
levels
>> just make backporting harder for no gain.
>
> There is debhelper 8 in both, lenny-backports as well as in
> squeeze-backports.
There
On 08/07/11 22:23, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 07/08/2011 08:47 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
>> Right now, the general consensus is the dh and cdbs produce
>> debian packages that are easier to maintain in the long run (if the
>> sponsor has to take over maintenance of the package or if NMUs are
>> requi
Thomas Goirand writes:
>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:55 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>>
>> [...] but should be made explicit as the reasons not to use dh, for
>> example, might mean that the helper is lacking functionality or
>> behaves buggy in certain situations.
>
> I don't get it here...
>
> D
> Hi Adam,
>
> On 08.07.2011 18:24, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > If you don't make use of newest shiniest features, higher debhelper
> levels
> > just make backporting harder for no gain.
>
> There is debhelper 8 in both, lenny-backports as well as in
> squeeze-backports.
>
> Moreover Debian packages t
>
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:55 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>
> [...] but should be made explicit as the reasons not to use dh, for
> example, might mean that the helper is lacking functionality or
> behaves buggy in certain situations.
I don't get it here...
Do you think that debian/rules call
Hi,
Nice topic, thanks to Jakub for having the good idea to have started it.
On 07/08/2011 08:47 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> Right now, the general consensus is the dh and cdbs produce
> debian packages that are easier to maintain in the long run (if the
> sponsor has to take over maintenance of th
Hi Jakub, hi all,
[...] (whether or not to request bumping debhelper compat; I do agree with the
technical arguments put forward by Jakub, but that's not the focus of my reply)
The obvious provocative answer is: Nitpicking is the way to go. As always,
however, there's more than black and white ou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Adam,
On 08.07.2011 18:24, Adam Borowski wrote:
> If you don't make use of newest shiniest features, higher debhelper levels
> just make backporting harder for no gain.
There is debhelper 8 in both, lenny-backports as well as in
squeeze-backports.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 04:31:49PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 08.07.2011 15:56, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> > I can understand how this applies to older packages that have been created
> > in
> > the past and just don't use some of the new functionality, but I guess that
> > the points are valid f
Scott Howard writes:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> - debian/copyright not in DEP-5 format;
> This is accepted and will be policy soon [3]. "What should be done
> eventually must be done immediately."
It will be in Policy and maintained via the Policy process, but it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.07.2011 15:56, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
>>> 1. You're using debhelper compat 7 and also only debhelper >=
>>> 7.0.50~ as Build-Depends. Please bump that to 8
>>
>> Seriously? Is the sponsor suggesting that one should be
>> build-depending on a new
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:55 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> (I'm creating a new thread rather than replying to a particular
> message, because my mail is not at all personal. It's a general
> tendency amongst many debian-mentors reviewers that I'm going to
> rant about.)
>
> A sponsor on 2011-07-08,
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:47:31 -0400, Scott Howard wrote:
>
> > - debian/copyright not in DEP-5 format;
>
> This is accepted and will be policy soon [3]. "What should be done
> eventually must be done immediately."
>
I think you might misunderstand the DEP process, which is easy to
do. The follow
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, in my opinion (some of) these things are "good". But
> making a big fuss about them is not helping anybody. It only distracts
> attention from things that are important, and creates false impression that
> they are somehow cru
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Dear reviewers, next time if you are going to complain about:
> - debian/compat being "too low";
There are cases where it should be bumped [1], support for old
versions gets removed. Many sponsors take the approach "What should be
done eventuall
Le vendredi 8 juillet 2011 12:55:52, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
[SNIP]
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, in my opinion (some of) these things are "good". But
> making a big fuss about them is not helping anybody. It only distracts
> attention from things that are important, and creates false impression
> that
(I'm creating a new thread rather than replying to a particular message,
because my mail is not at all personal. It's a general tendency amongst
many debian-mentors reviewers that I'm going to rant about.)
A sponsor on 2011-07-08, 11:22 wrote:
1. You're using debhelper compat 7 and also only de
28 matches
Mail list logo
