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
to
Your message dated Thu, 27 Jan 2022 15:11:51 -0700
with message-id <87wnik96c8@melete.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#976402: Proposed official virtual packages - todo and
todo.txt
has caused the Debian Bug report #976402,
regarding Proposed official virtual packages - to
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 todotxt-c
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
De
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 a
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? See
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 - moreinfo
Bug #976402 [debian-policy] Proposed official virtual packages - todo and
todo.txt
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
--
976402: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976402
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org w
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
>>
>
>
> https://salsa.debian.o
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 virt
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 tod
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 speci
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 o
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 satisf
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 an
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
d
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 + patch
Bug #976402 [debian-policy] Proposed official virtual packages - todo and
todo.txt
Added tag(s) patch.
--
976402: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976402
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
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 [autho
Hello,
On Mon 14 Dec 2020 at 09:35AM -05, Dave Steele wrote:
> Update. No todo, and suggest the following for todo.txt text:
>
> command-line task management utility compatible with todo.txt CLI (
> http://todotxt.org)
Could you provide an actual patch against policy.git, please, for
secondi
Update. No todo, and suggest the following for todo.txt text:
command-line task management utility compatible with todo.txt CLI (
http://todotxt.org)
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 2:57 PM Dave Steele wrote:
> Please update the Authoritative List of Virtual Package Names to
> include "todo" and "to
Your message dated Mon, 14 Dec 2020 09:28:18 -0500
with message-id
and subject line
has caused the Debian Bug report #976402,
regarding Proposed official virtual packages - todo and todo.txt
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not
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
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
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
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
Please update the Authoritative List of Virtual Package Names to
include "todo" and "todo.txt".
Discussion of the change is documented in [#976402].
[#976402]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976402
Suggested content:
# Miscellaneous
virtualPackages:
- name: todo
descr
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 i
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 alter
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 g
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 d
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. This
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 m
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 make
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 iden
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 "todo.tx
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 per
38 matches
Mail list logo
