Le Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:34:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I see those two issues as linked because of how version numbering works,
which is the key difference in using the native format. With a native
package, you only have a single version number, not a version with a
Debian
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I think that I am missing documentation on that topic.
Yes, I seem to recall there's an open Policy bug for the fact that native
and non-native packages aren't particularly well-documented.
The Policy §3.2 mentions ‘remember that hyphen (-) cannot be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Charles,
On 22.10.2011 03:36, Charles Plessy wrote:
if as an upstream author you are not using tarballs, you can use the format
‘3.0 (native)’. It will make a source package where everything is included in
a single tarball.
that's not
Le Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:46:12PM +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
On 22.10.2011 03:36, Charles Plessy wrote:
if as an upstream author you are not using tarballs, you can use the format
‘3.0 (native)’. It will make a source package where everything is included
in
a single tarball.
* Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org, 2011-10-22, 20:09:
if as an upstream author you are not using tarballs, you can use the
format ‘3.0 (native)’. It will make a source package where everything
is included in a single tarball.
that's not quite what native packages are for. Native packages
Le Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 01:29:57PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
Just because some developers choose to abuse native source format,
doesn't mean it's something that should be advocated to newcomers.
So please stop. Thanks.
Apart from the point I raised about translations (for which I never
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:41:34 +0900
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Le Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 01:29:57PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
Just because some developers choose to abuse native source format,
doesn't mean it's something that should be advocated to newcomers.
So please stop.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Antonio,
On 22.10.2011 15:27, Antonio Ospite wrote:
In a native package every changes you make to the debian packaging
metadata translates into a new upstream release, and this is not nice
if you think to other distributions too.
Am I
Le Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 03:27:39PM +0200, Antonio Ospite a écrit :
I am a newbie about debian development, but I think that you generally
want to have the possibility to make multiple iteration for the package
metadata for the _same_ upstream release.
In a native package every changes you
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
This is excactly why I am limiting my recommendation to the case where
there is no upstream release as tarball. In that sense, a new source
package is still a downstream event that is not indicative of an
upstream release.
I am not sure that it is a
Le Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 07:08:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
The same issue as with a tarball applies, though: unless the intention is
to tag a new upstream release every single time a new version of the
Debian package is uploaded (or unless the upstream doesn't even tag
releases, but I
On 10/22/2011 07:41 PM, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 01:29:57PM +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
Just because some developers choose to abuse native source format,
doesn't mean it's something that should be advocated to newcomers.
So please stop. Thanks.
Apart from the
On 10/23/2011 11:37 AM, Charles Plessy wrote:
Hi Russ,
I think that we are discussing two separate questions: whether a maintainer of
his own software in Debian should release a new upstream version when updating
the Debian package
If the change in the software isn't located in the packaging,
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I think that we are discussing two separate questions: whether a
maintainer of his own software in Debian should release a new upstream
version when updating the Debian package, and whether the the maintainer
of a Debian package for which there is no
Hi,
For those of you using git-buildpackage (gbp), I have a question I
hope you can answer.
I've got a source tree for which I am the upstream author, it is under
version control using git.
It seems like it should be possible to use gbp to build the package
without having an actual tar ball.
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:53:31 -0500, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
Hi,
Hello Matt,
(CCing you, I don't know whether you're subscribed or not).
[..]
It seems like it should be possible to use gbp to build the package
without having an actual tar ball. However, it appears that it is not.
I think
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:53:31 -0500
Matt Zagrabelny mzagr...@d.umn.edu wrote:
Hi,
For those of you using git-buildpackage (gbp), I have a question I
hope you can answer.
I've got a source tree for which I am the upstream author, it is under
version control using git.
Same situation as
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:22:37 +0200
Antonio Ospite osp...@studenti.unina.it wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:53:31 -0500
Matt Zagrabelny mzagr...@d.umn.edu wrote:
[...]
upstream-tag = v%(version)s
---[ END ]--
[...]
Just run
git-buildpackage
and that's it, the gbp.conf
Le Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 04:53:31PM -0500, Matt Zagrabelny a écrit :
For those of you using git-buildpackage (gbp), I have a question I
hope you can answer.
I've got a source tree for which I am the upstream author, it is under
version control using git.
It seems like it should be
19 matches
Mail list logo
