Bug#897158: ITP: node-nodedbi -- libdbi interface for Node.js
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Xavier Guimard * Package name: node-nodedbi Version : 1.0.12 Upstream Author : Daniel O'Neill * URL : https://github.com/danieloneill/nodedbi * License : GPL-2 Programming Lang: Javascript Description : libdbi interface for Node.js NodeDBI is a LibDBI interface for Node.js. In addition to providing a traditional interface for SQL database access, it also offers developers the ability of paging on results programmatically and storing result handles to a session as shown below.
what do people feel think of changing the configuration file path from ~/.aptitude/config to ~/.config/aptitude
Dear all, First of all thank you all the fine people who have contributed to packaging and maintaining the whole suit of apt, aptitude, apt-get, dpkg low and high-level variety of tools in Debian for system administration and making good choices. Please CC me if you any thoughts as although I'm subscribed to debian-devel I have opted out of receiving mails due to the high-volume nature of the mailing list. Now about a year back, I had proposed changing paths of the configuration file ~/.aptitude/config to ~/.config/aptitude . The reason is for a change in https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-0.6.html As shared by somebody in https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/8fpr6i/thoughts_on_changing_configuration_files_of/ I don't think I'm alone in this . The obvious breakage would be in any scripts that use aptitude and one way or the other depend or use the configuration path currently using would be broken. There may also be some subtle bugs which may or may not be uncovered or not known which may be exposed by the change perhaps. The other part which perhaps not correctly worded is that aptitude would lose some of its special coolness as it would be in the space where all other packages which use ~/.config are there and it would be easier to find for common folks. The upside if people think would be a good idea is that any perceived or un-perceived fallout of the change, we would have at least a year and a bit more to fix at least in Debian repos. I do know that the Debian aptitude maintainers are conservative when it comes to changes and understandably so. I'm looking for people's thoughts on the above of what people think . I am no coder hence I dunno how much work it would involve and would the changes be self-sustained (till aptitude only) or the changes would also lead to changes in libapt* packages although even then if a transition were to be done it seems both seem to have smaller cycles than some of the transition cycles we have got going through. I did - $ apt-rdepends -r aptitude $ apt-rdepends -r libapt-pkg-dev to have an idea in case if the change I ask meant they need to built from source and transitioned. I am sure there may be lacunae in my theory, but if not asked how would I know ? Look forward to know. -- Regards, Shirish Agarwal शिरीष अग्रवाल My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com EB80 462B 08E1 A0DE A73A 2C2F 9F3D C7A4 E1C4 D2D8
Re: what do people feel think of changing the configuration file path from ~/.aptitude/config to ~/.config/aptitude
Hi shirish, > Re: what do people feel think of changing the configuration file > path from ~/.aptitude/config to ~/.config/aptitude Unless you are requesting a distribution-wide move from ~/.foo to XDG ~/.config/foo, filing a wishlist bug against the aptitude package would seem a more appropriate venue for this discussion.. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Re: what do people feel think of changing the configuration file path from ~/.aptitude/config to ~/.config/aptitude
at bottom :- On 29/04/2018, Chris Lamb wrote: > Hi shirish, > >> Re: what do people feel think of changing the configuration file >> path from ~/.aptitude/config to ~/.config/aptitude > > Unless you are requesting a distribution-wide move from ~/.foo > to XDG ~/.config/foo, filing a wishlist bug against the aptitude > package would seem a more appropriate venue for this discussion.. > > > Regards, > > -- > ,''`. > : :' : Chris Lamb > `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk >`- > Dear Chris, Had already done it, see #894332 , But don't think it's not going to go anywhere from the last two times :( as it seems the effort to do it is not the worth the effort as shared by the maintainer. At least I tried, well guess just will have to learn to live with it. -- Regards, Shirish Agarwal शिरीष अग्रवाल My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com EB80 462B 08E1 A0DE A73A 2C2F 9F3D C7A4 E1C4 D2D8
Re: what do people feel think of changing the configuration file path from ~/.aptitude/config to ~/.config/aptitude
Shirish, > Had already done it, see #894332 , But don't think it's not going to > go anywhere from the last two times :( as it seems the effort to do it > is not the worth the effort as shared by the maintainer. > > At least I tried, well guess just will have to learn to live with it. Thank you for linking the bug. Not speaking to this case specifically, but in general I would try to convince maintainers with some combination of irrefutable argument and well-tested patches (combined with a friendly demeanour and a rhethorical flourish) rather than try and summon the "mob" from debian-devel if I didn't immediately get my way. ;) Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#897190: ITP: wemux -- multi-user Tmux made easy
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Nicolas Braud-Santoni * Package name: wemux Version : 3.2.0 Upstream Author : Matt Furden * URL : https://github.com/zolrath/wemux * License : MIT Programming Lang: Shell Description : multi-user Tmux made easy wemux enhances tmux to make multi-user terminal multiplexing both easier and more powerful. It allows users to host a wemux server and have clients join in either: - Mirror Mode gives clients (another SSH user on your machine) read-only access to the session, allowing them to see you work, or - Pair Mode allows the client and yourself to work in the same terminal (shared cursor) - Rogue Mode allows the client to pair or work independently in another window (separate cursors) in the same tmux session. It features multi-server support as well as user listing and notifications when users attach/detach. Best, nicoo
Re: what do people feel think of changing the configuration file path from ~/.aptitude/config to ~/.config/aptitude
Reply in-line :- On 29/04/2018, Chris Lamb wrote: > Shirish, > Chris, >> Had already done it, see #894332 , But don't think it's not going to >> go anywhere from the last two times :( as it seems the effort to do it >> is not the worth the effort as shared by the maintainer. >> >> At least I tried, well guess just will have to learn to live with it. > > Thank you for linking the bug. > > Not speaking to this case specifically, but in general I would try > to convince maintainers with some combination of irrefutable > argument and well-tested patches (combined with a friendly demeanour > and a rhethorical flourish) rather than try and summon the "mob" from > debian-devel if I didn't immediately get my way. ;) > > The irrefutable argument is that most packages seem to think it's a good and convenient way to do things and it does simplify things quite a lot. I didn't hear from the maintainers anything untoward except that it would have breakage and probably needs fixing at various places. I am at a loss as I'm not a coder but am open to testing any patches and report any breakages if somebody can step up to do the same. I have done that in the past https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877717 where I was able to connect with the maintainer and we did couple of rounds of testing before he got it right and was able to put it up on experimental. As far as 'not getting immediately my way' the immediacy would have been if I had filed a bug yesterday and bugged today, then your statement would have been valid. But couple of years is not immediate as Axel shared in the bug, if memory serves me right, this was around October/November 2016 thereish. > Best wishes, > > -- > ,''`. > : :' : Chris Lamb > `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk >`- > -- Regards, Shirish Agarwal शिरीष अग्रवाल My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com EB80 462B 08E1 A0DE A73A 2C2F 9F3D C7A4 E1C4 D2D8
Re: what do people feel think of changing the configuration file path from ~/.aptitude/config to ~/.config/aptitude
Shirish, > As far as 'not getting immediately my way' the immediacy would have > been if I had filed a bug yesterday and bugged today, then your > statement would have been valid. It is true that there has been no activity on #894332 for a few weeks but I am unsure what you intended to productively achieve by cross-posting this issue to debian-devel and Reddit. A quick glance through the wishlist bug in question suggests to me that the risk/reward of making such a change is unlikely to feature highly in list of priorities. Drumming up "+1s" elsewhere in the project is unlikely to alter this nor endear your request to the aptitude maintainers. As implied in my original reply, a general discussion regarding a distribution-wide move to XDG ~/.config directories might be suitable for -devel, but any further discussion about the aptitude- specific case should be taken to #894332. Not only would this prevent the conversation being fragmented between the three locations, it would also appear to assist in the "high-volume nature" of this mailing list that you find problematic. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#897201: ITP: empty-epsilon -- a spaceship bridge simulator game
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Nicolas Braud-Santoni * Package name: empty-epsilon Version : 2018.02.15 Upstream Author : Daid & Nallath * URL : https://daid.github.io/EmptyEpsilon/ * License : GPL-2 Programming Lang: C++ & Lua Description : a spaceship bridge simulator game EmptyEpsilon places you in the roles of a spaceship's bridge officers, like those seen in Star Trek. While you can play EmptyEpsilon alone or with friends, the best experience involves 6 players working together on each ship. Each officer fills a unique role: Captain, Helms, Weapons, Relay, Science, and Engineering. Except for the Captain, each officer operates part of the ship through a specialized screen. The Captain relies on their trusty crew to report information and follow orders. Artemis Spaceship Bridge Simulator was the inspiration for EmptyEpsilon. It is pretty good as a bridge simulator, but had some issues that EmptyEpsilon's authors wanted to fix. Moreover, Artemis is not opensource.
Bug#897202: ITP: seriousproton -- C++ game engine implemented atop SFML
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Nicolas Braud-Santoni * Package name: seriousproton Version : 2018.02.15 Upstream Author : Daid & Nallath * URL : https://github.com/daid/SeriousProton/ * License : MIT Programming Lang: C++ Description : game engine implemented atop SFML seriousprootn is the game engine used to implement Empty Epsilon and thus a dependency of it.
Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules
Hey Scott, (Somehow this got wedged in my 'Drafts' folder. Please don't read anything into the delay in replying...) > Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created equal. Some have > solid foundation in Debian project consensus and policy. Others are > nothing more than the opinions of the lintian maintainers. True, but one would hope the Lintian maintainers were amenable to reason and logic as well as being open to the idea that they might mistakes in error and judgement in the relative importance of tags. :) You seem to have specific warnings in mind.. File bugs? Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules
On Monday, April 30, 2018 06:07:19 AM Chris Lamb wrote: > Hey Scott, > > (Somehow this got wedged in my 'Drafts' folder. Please don't read > anything into the delay in replying...) > > > Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created equal. Some have > > solid foundation in Debian project consensus and policy. Others are > > nothing more than the opinions of the lintian maintainers. > > True, but one would hope the Lintian maintainers were amenable to > reason and logic as well as being open to the idea that they might > mistakes in error and judgement in the relative importance of > tags. :) > > You seem to have specific warnings in mind.. File bugs? OK. #897213. Scott K
