On 1/27/22 5:11 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
Hello David,
...
Reviewing this bug, it is still not clear to me that a virtual package
is wanted as opposed to just making /usr/bin/todo a path managed by the
alternatives system.
I'm closing the bug, but if development that has taken place in the
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:53 AM Novy, Ondrej
wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 14:20:57 +0100 Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> > What Sean meant is that, at this stage, this proposal needs to be
> > seconded by people impacted by this virtual package before being
> > accepted.
>
> as maintainer of
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 14:20:57 +0100 Bill Allombert wrote:
> What Sean meant is that, at this stage, this proposal needs to be
> seconded by people impacted by this virtual package before being
> accepted.
as maintainer of todotxt-cli I second this.
--
Best regards
Ondřej Nový
signature.asc
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 04:42:46PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> > Second seconds request.
> I'm not aware of any other inputs expected of me.
What Sean meant is that, at this stage, this proposal needs to be
seconded by people impacted by this virtual package before being
accepted.
If you know
control: tag -1 - moreinfo
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:32 AM David Steele wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:29 PM David Steele wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:42 PM Sean Whitton
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Could you provide an actual patch against policy.git, please, for
>>> seconding?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:29 PM David Steele wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:42 PM Sean Whitton
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Could you provide an actual patch against policy.git, please, for
>> seconding? See README.md in policy.git for more info.
>>
>> --
>> Sean Whitton
>>
>
>
>
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:34 PM David Steele wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:14 PM Sean Whitton
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Okay, and you expect every implementation of todo.txt to have
>> tdtcleanup? I think we probably want to specify that as one of the (or
>> the only?) requirements of the
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:14 PM Sean Whitton
wrote:
>
> Okay, and you expect every implementation of todo.txt to have
> tdtcleanup? I think we probably want to specify that as one of the (or
> the only?) requirements of the virtual package.
>
No, no.
The gtd stuff is an optional add-on to
Hello,
On Wed 16 Dec 2020 at 10:02AM -05, David Steele wrote:
> Imagine that tdtcleanup is a pre/post hook in todo.txt-base. An
> implementation of todo.txt is needed
> to make use of it.
Okay, and you expect every implementation of todo.txt to have
tdtcleanup? I think we probably want to
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:29 PM David Steele wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:48 PM Sean Whitton
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Putting aside the use of the alternatives system, why is a virtual
>> package wanted? When would it be useful to be able to declare a
>> dependency and have it satisfied by
Hello,
On Mon 14 Dec 2020 at 05:29PM -05, David Steele wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:48 PM Sean Whitton
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Putting aside the use of the alternatives system, why is a virtual
>> package wanted? When would it be useful to be able to declare a
>> dependency and have it
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:48 PM Sean Whitton
wrote:
>
>
> Putting aside the use of the alternatives system, why is a virtual
> package wanted? When would it be useful to be able to declare a
> dependency and have it satisfied by one of these implementations?
>
>
As an example, a future rev of
control: tag -1 + patch
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:42 PM Sean Whitton
wrote:
>
> Could you provide an actual patch against policy.git, please, for
> seconding? See README.md in policy.git for more info.
>
> --
> Sean Whitton
>
https://salsa.debian.org/steele/policy/-/tree/bug976402-steele
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 + moreinfo
Bug #976402 [debian-policy] Proposed official virtual packages - todo and
todo.txt
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
976402: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976402
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
control: tag -1 + moreinfo
Hello David,
On Fri 04 Dec 2020 at 12:15PM -05, David Steele wrote:
> I'd like to propose adding the virtual packages "todo" and "todo.txt" to
> the authoritative list of virtual package names. I'm submitting this per
> Policy section 3.6 and the preamble to the
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
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
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
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
>>
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:39 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:23:44PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:21 PM David Steele wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:54 PM Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Are people using /usr/bin/todo
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:23:44PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:21 PM David Steele wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:54 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Are people using /usr/bin/todo in script or Makefile ?
> >> Are they likely to still work with the
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:21 PM David Steele wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:54 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
>>
>> Are people using /usr/bin/todo in script or Makefile ?
>> Are they likely to still work with the alternatives ?
>>
>
> I'd say no. It is an interactive end-user command.
>
> This
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:54 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> Are people using /usr/bin/todo in script or Makefile ?
> Are they likely to still work with the alternatives ?
>
I'd say no. It is an interactive end-user command.
This gives flexibility in what they are interacting with.
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 05:12:13PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:42 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 01:34:44PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bill Allombert
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do you envision to have packages
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:42 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 01:34:44PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> >
> > > Do you envision to have packages depending on todo and then use the
> > > todo binary ?
> > >
> >
> > No.
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 01:34:44PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> 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
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
> todo binary ?
>
No. This is a
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:40:01PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:30 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> >
> > Does all theses tools provide an compatible interface ?
> > In other word, are there interoperable ?
>
> Yes, topydo and todotxt-cli support common commands, which
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:30 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> Does all theses tools provide an compatible interface ?
> In other word, are there interoperable ?
>
Yes, topydo and todotxt-cli support common commands, which make them
interoperable for most uses. However, the command sets are not
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:15:06PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org, charlesmel...@outlook.com,
> on...@debian.org
> thanks
>
>
> I'd like to propose adding the virtual packages "todo" and
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org, charlesmel...@outlook.com,
on...@debian.org
thanks
I'd like to propose adding the virtual packages "todo" and "todo.txt" to
the authoritative list of virtual package names. I'm submitting this
31 matches
Mail list logo
