Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

2017-02-10 Thread Brian May
kuLa writes: > dgit indeed is using it's own repos: > https://browse.dgit.debian.org/ > git.dgit.debian.org The way I understand it is that dgit is simply a replacement for the upload operation. To implement this with the required checks, it is recommended (but not required) that you use its bu

Re: Naming convention for -doc package

2017-02-10 Thread Ben Finney
Ghislain Vaillant writes: > So given your criteria above, you would choose: > > - python3-pytestqt > - python-pytestqt-doc > > Am I correct? That allows a future ‘python4-pytestqt’ to use the same documentation. So far, the overwhelming pattern is that upstream's documentation does not come in

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

2017-02-10 Thread Brian May
Brian May writes: > [brian:~/tree … modules/factory-boy] master 255 ± dgit --gbp --clean=git > sbuild --verbose > Format `3.0 (quilt)', need to check/update patch stack > examining quilt state (multiple patches, gbp mode) > dgit: split brain (separate dgit view) may be ne

Re: Re: Naming convention for -doc package

2017-02-10 Thread Ghislain Vaillant
[Piotr Ożarowski] > > For instance, I have a source package (pytest-qt) which builds a Python > > 3 binary package and its corresponding documentation. Right now, they > > are respectively named python3-pytest-qt and pytest-qt-doc. > > I'd use python-modulename-doc even for new packages that provi

Re: Naming convention for -doc package

2017-02-10 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > So based on #829744, both pytest-qt and > pytest-xvfb, which are new packages, do not produce a corresponding > Python 2 binary package. my point is: this looks wrong and premature, and should have been discussed more broadly and not jus

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

2017-02-10 Thread kuLa
On 2017-02-10 21:11:42, Brian May wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes: > > > How is that different/better than debcheckout? > > I am still learning dgit, however I think that dgit uses its own git > repositories. dgit-repos. I am not sure where these are located or how > access is controlled. dgit

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

2017-02-10 Thread Brian May
Scott Kitterman writes: > How is that different/better than debcheckout? I am still learning dgit, however I think that dgit uses its own git repositories. dgit-repos. I am not sure where these are located or how access is controlled. >From the man page for push "This will push your git history

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

2017-02-10 Thread Brian May
Nikolaus Rath writes: > But it seems to me that you are contemplating whether or not the team > should be using dgit. This is also not a decision that needs to be made > prior to any switch away from dgit-dpm, you can start using dgit at any > point. My vague understanding is that dgit complemen

Re: Naming convention for -doc package

2017-02-10 Thread Ghislain Vaillant
On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 18:58 -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 16:51 -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ghislain Vaillant > > > wrote: > > > > Now that new packages are targeting the Buster c

Re: Naming convention for -doc package

2017-02-10 Thread Piotr Ożarowski
> For instance, I have a source package (pytest-qt) which builds a Python > 3 binary package and its corresponding documentation. Right now, they > are respectively named python3-pytest-qt and pytest-qt-doc. I'd use python-modulename-doc even for new packages that provide python3-modulename binary