Ian Jackson writes:
> Ansgar writes ("Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2"):
>> `ar` needs to be replaced for the file size limitation mentioned in the
>> initial mail: ar represents file size as a 10 digit decimal number[1]
>> which limits the members (control.tar.*, data.tar.*) to
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:18:18AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 19:38:26 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > First, the 0.939 format, as described in "man deb-old". While still being
> > accepted by dpkg, it had been superseded before even the very first stable
> > release. Why
> On 10 May 2019, at 10:39, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> I understand that this was an issue when prototyping, but have you used ar
> to manipulate .deb archives even once this millenium? By now, the deb
> format is common, while ar is an obscure implementation detail.
I did used ar to unpack .d
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:53:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (adding debian-dpkg)
Probably too late to move the thread :(
> Adam Borowski writes (".deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2"):
> > First, the 0.939 format, as described in "man deb-old". While still being
> > accepted by dp
Hi!
On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 19:38:26 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> First, the 0.939 format, as described in "man deb-old". While still being
> accepted by dpkg, it had been superseded before even the very first stable
> release. Why? It has at least two upsides over 2.0:
I'll try to detangle the
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 1413 (new: 14)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 160 (new: 0)
Total number of packages reque
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Manas Kashyap
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-r...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: ruby-has-secure-token
Version : 1.0.0
Upstream Author : Roberto Miranda
* URL : https://github.com/robertomiranda/has_secure_t
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Vagrant Cascadian
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, mer...@debian.org,
debian-ri...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: opensbi
Version : 0.3+
Upstream Author : Anup Patel/Western Digital, other contributors
* URL : http
Hi,
On Thu, 9 May 2019, 15:57 Ian Jackson,
wrote:
> Ansgar writes ("Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2"):
> > `ar` needs to be replaced for the file size limitation mentioned in the
> > initial mail: ar represents file size as a 10 digit decimal number[1]
> > which limits the me
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Preferred git branch structure when upstream moves
from tarballs to git [and 1 more messages]"):
> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 01:46:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > debcheckout *certainly* doesn't do this. It just gives you the
> > current master which may not have been
On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 12:51 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 01:46:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > debcheckout *certainly* doesn't do this. It just gives you the
> > current master which may not have been uploaded anywhere.
>
> nope:
>
> $ debcheckout munin
> declared git
Ansgar writes ("Re: .deb format: let's use 0.939, zstd, drop bzip2"):
> `ar` needs to be replaced for the file size limitation mentioned in the
> initial mail: ar represents file size as a 10 digit decimal number[1]
> which limits the members (control.tar.*, data.tar.*) to ~10G.
...
> Replacing `ar
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 01:46:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> debcheckout *certainly* doesn't do this. It just gives you the
> current master which may not have been uploaded anywhere.
nope:
$ debcheckout munin
declared git repository at https://salsa.debian.org/debian/munin.git -b debian
git c
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Preferred git branch structure when upstream moves
from tarballs to git [and 1 more messages]"):
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 04:14:00PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> * Debian should provide source code as git branches which:
> - can be built using a standard set of
On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 12:32 +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2019-05-09 06:27:36 +0900 (+0900), Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:04:49PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> [...]
> > > Are you talking about source packages or binary packages here?
> > > The
> > > latter use ar, not tar
On 2019-05-09 06:27:36 +0900 (+0900), Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:04:49PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
[...]
> > Are you talking about source packages or binary packages here? The
> > latter use ar, not tar.
>
> Binary packages use both.
>
> $ ar t /var/cache/apt/archives/libg
(adding #903392)
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Preferred git branch structure when upstream moves from
tarballs to git"):
> What I remain unconvinced of is the worth of abandoning the clean
> separation between an upstream source repository (whether Git repository
> or not) and a VCS repository for Deb
Ansgar writes ("Re: Preferred git branch structure when upstream moves from
tarballs to git"):
> On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 10:33 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I think there's a common misconception here which has cropped up
> > several times in this thread. (NB: I've not used dgit in anger yet, but
>
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:22:56AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Also dpkg keeps metadata in /var, but changelogs, NEWS, copyright
> documentation isn't variable state data and should be below /usr... The
> same is really true for lists of files and maintainer scripts though.
It's a mess:
* Most of the
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 08:10:00AM +, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On May 8, 2019 9:43:50 PM UTC, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> >I just checked Stretch: not a single .bz2, either control nor data. I'm
> >not going to download all of Jessie just to check -- but even assuming
> >something was left b
On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 10:33 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 11:19 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > What I remain unconvinced of is the worth of abandoning the clean
> > separation between an upstream source repository (whether Git repository
> > or not) and a VCS repository for Debia
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 03:26:32PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> thanks for the pointer, but I don't see the string debcheckout in that
> message and vcs-git only once, where you write:
>
> ---begin quote---
>
> >From these we can conclude:
>
> * Debian should provide source code as git branche
On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 11:19 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> What I remain unconvinced of is the worth of abandoning the clean
> separation between an upstream source repository (whether Git repository
> or not) and a VCS repository for Debian packaging (typically in Git).
I think there's a common misco
On May 8, 2019 9:43:50 PM UTC, Adam Borowski wrote:
>I just checked Stretch: not a single .bz2, either control nor data.
>I'm not
>going to download all of Jessie just to check -- but even assuming
>something
>was left by Jessie's time, by Bullseye trying to install such a .deb
>will
>mean mi
Package: heliopy
Owner: Shreyas Bapat
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-as...@lists.debian.org,
debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: heliopy
Version: 0.6.7
Upstream Author : David Stansby
* URL
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:01:27PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 07:37:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:38 AM Adam Borowski wrote:
> >
> > > Thus, even though we'd want to stick with xz for the official archive,
> > > speed
> > > gains from zstd ar
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 10:35:58PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>> Adam Borowski writes:
>> > I've recently did some research on how can we improve the speed of
>> > unpacking
>> > packages. There's a lot of other stages that can be improved, but let's
>> > talk about the .deb for
27 matches
Mail list logo
