Bug#976402: Proposed official virtual packages - todo and todo.txt

2020-12-09 Thread Ansgar Burchardt
David Steele writes: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 3:21 AM Ansgar wrote: >> Given topydo just provides/conflicts with devtodo to provide the "todo" >> binary, this seems to violate Policy 10.1 "Binaries" unless they provide >> the same functionality. [...] > From where I stand, I would expect the Polic

Bug#976402: Bug#976902: topydo: provides /usr/bin/todo with incompatible interface compared to devtodo

2020-12-09 Thread Dave Steele
I see two complaints about the "todo" virtual package: 1) it encompasses applications that may not have sufficiently identical interfaces, and/or 2) it uses Conflicts as a transition mechanism. Resolving (2) exceeds my threshold. I'll drop the todo package. That leaves todo.txt, implemented b

Bug#976402: Bug#976902: topydo: provides /usr/bin/todo with incompatible interface compared to devtodo

2020-12-09 Thread Dave Steele
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:40 PM Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:00:23PM -0500, Dave Steele wrote: > > /usr/bin/todo is not registered as an alternative by devtodo, > so you cannot register it as an alternative in another package. > The conflict between devtodo and topydo is not

Bug#976402: Proposed official virtual packages - todo and todo.txt

2020-12-09 Thread David Steele
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:44 PM David Steele wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 3:21 AM Ansgar wrote: > >> >> >> Should emacs provide a "todo" script to open ~/TODO (with say org-mode)? >> > In regards to org mode. I'd add a third criteria - the expectation that the underlying file complies with

Bug#976402: Proposed official virtual packages - todo and todo.txt

2020-12-09 Thread David Steele
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 3:21 AM Ansgar wrote: > > Given topydo just provides/conflicts with devtodo to provide the "todo" > binary, this seems to violate Policy 10.1 "Binaries" unless they provide > the same functionality. > Note that there is a Conflicts because the current devtodo does not supp

Bug#976402: Bug#976902: topydo: provides /usr/bin/todo with incompatible interface compared to devtodo

2020-12-09 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:00:23PM -0500, Dave Steele wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 3:54 AM Ansgar wrote: > > > Package: topydo > > Version: 0.13-5 > > Severity: serious > > > > Example use of `todo` from devtodo: > > > > +--- > > | Add a task, like so: > > | > > | $ todo -a I should really upd

Bug#976402: Bug#976902: topydo: provides /usr/bin/todo with incompatible interface compared to devtodo

2020-12-09 Thread Dave Steele
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 3:54 AM Ansgar wrote: > Package: topydo > Version: 0.13-5 > Severity: serious > > Example use of `todo` from devtodo: > > +--- > | Add a task, like so: > | > | $ todo -a I should really update my homepage > | > | List all open tasks: > | > | $ todo > | > | Mark a task as co

Bug#976402: Proposed official virtual packages - todo and todo.txt

2020-12-09 Thread Ansgar
David Steele writes: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bill Allombert wrote: > >> What about devtodo ? >> >> Reading your summary, it seems that the todo.txt virtual package >> is well specified, but the todo one is not. >> >> Do you envision to have packages depending on todo and then use the >> t