Hi!
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 09:25:38 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Now all I need is for dpkg to accept that the absence of
> > debian/source/format is declarative of source format 1.0.
>
> That's the case _for now_.
>
> > packages don't need to be
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 09:01:31AM -0400, James Vega wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:47:28PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:18:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > > > That being said, I would (as it is no
On 30 March 2010 16:46, Sven Mueller wrote:
> My main reason for not yet switching is that hg-buildpackage and
> svn-buildpackage don't completely support the 3.0 format yet as far as I
> can tell.
You can try out mercurial-buildpackage, where I have tried to support
"3.0 (quilt)" as good as I co
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:03:09PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>[...]
>> In the general case, switching is a small effort for sure, but in the case
>> pointed out by Neil (he won't convert packages with no patches because he
>> doesn't see the benefit) the effort is almos
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:47:28PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:18:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > > That being said, I would (as it is now) actually prefer that it was
> > > just a helper tool that from a VCS
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:18:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > That being said, I would (as it is now) actually prefer that it was
> > just a helper tool that from a VCS could derive a source package of
> > existing format. That would probabl
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Niels Thykier wrote:
> That being said, I would (as it is now) actually prefer that it was
> just a helper tool that from a VCS could derive a source package of
> existing format. That would probably also increase the adoption rate,
> since existing tools would work with thos
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 31 mars 2010 à 08:18 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>>> I agree. dpkg-dev should not be depending on any VCS and it should not
>>> promote any particular VCS either. I know that git is the new black (oh,
>>> wait, that was something else), but I personally d
Le mercredi 31 mars 2010 à 08:18 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > I agree. dpkg-dev should not be depending on any VCS and it should not
> > promote any particular VCS either. I know that git is the new black (oh,
> > wait, that was something else), but I personally don't like it. And I
> > es
James Westby writes:
> The unpacked source package has no format, it's a directory on disk
> with certain properties. You could take that directory and produce a
> source package in any number of formats.
>
> The debian/source/format is then not a declaration of what format the
> directory is in,
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Sven Mueller wrote:
> Julien BLACHE schrieb:
> > Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >
> >> I expect this to be of particular interest when we'll have VCS-powered
> >> source formats (say "3.0 (git2quilt)") that generate source packages that
> >> are plain "3.0 (quilt)" based on the git
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:29:01 +1100, Ben Finney
wrote:
> Specifically, a behaviour of *recognising* that a package is in source
> format 1.0. That's a fact of that package in that state, that shouldn't
> change just because time has passed.
>
> In other words, a source package left as it was from
Sven Mueller writes:
> Ben Finney schrieb:
> > Any future formats will be unambiguously distinguishable. Those
> > format-undeclared source packages can't be eradicated from the earth
> > entirely. So why not simply declare that they are source format 1.0,
> > as is without changes, and will alwa
Sven Mueller wrote:
> (for example in changing silently to native package format if the
> orig.tar.gz is missing)
That's not true is it? At least, if I use 'debuild' I get a pretty big
warning if the orig.tar.gz is missing.
$ apt-get source acct
$ rm acct_6.5.1.orig.tar.gz
$ debuild
This packag
Julien BLACHE schrieb:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
>> I expect this to be of particular interest when we'll have VCS-powered
>> source formats (say "3.0 (git2quilt)") that generate source packages that
>> are plain "3.0 (quilt)" based on the git repository information.
>
> This is becoming crazy,
Ben Finney schrieb:
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
>> There's a default value currently and it's "1.0", and I want to remove
>> the existence of a default value in the long term because it does not
>> make sense to have a default value corresponding to a source format
>> that is no longer recommended.
Sven Mueller writes:
> Wouter Verhelst schrieb:
>> Of course, this all conveniently ignores the fact that the above
>> explicit non-native option isn't actually supported, which is
>> unfortunate...
> Didn't check for this: Is a bug open to request such a feature to
> explicitly say "1.0 (native
Wouter Verhelst schrieb:
> I might want to have a file with "1.0 (non-native)" to have dpkg error
> out when I accidentally don't have a .orig.tar.gz file somewhere, for
> instance. As long as the absense of that file does not make things
> suddenly break, I don't think there's anything wrong with
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I expect this to be of particular interest when we'll have VCS-powered
> source formats (say "3.0 (git2quilt)") that generate source packages that
> are plain "3.0 (quilt)" based on the git repository information.
This is becoming crazy, really.
JB.
--
Julien BLACHE
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> FWIW I think debian/source/format sucks big time and its content should
> be moved to debian/control.
Actually it's a design decision to put it outside of the control file:
it's easier to create/modify/discard automatically when needed.
I expect this to
Ben Finney wrote:
Hi,
>> The problem is that if debian/source/format is missing for one reason
>> or another, your package will be silently built as a 1.0 source
>> package.
>
> There's no need for it to be silent. The idea was raised that, after a
> period of silent deprecation, the recognition
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 09:02:24AM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> I'm surprised by the resistance I see to these changes. I see the
> approach pushed by dpkg maintainers as fairly conservative with very
> progressive changes to existing packages and much respect for people
> who don't want to a
Julien BLACHE writes:
> The problem is that if debian/source/format is missing for one reason
> or another, your package will be silently built as a 1.0 source
> package.
There's no need for it to be silent. The idea was raised that, after a
period of silent deprecation, the recognition of sourc
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Ben Finney wrote:
> > As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with
> > “absence of ‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in
> > “1.0” source format” since that has no implication that “1.0” is
> > blessed or recommended i
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> I, for one, consider abusing Lintian checks for "recommendations" a very
> bad idea. Especially if you use _warnings_ for that. To warn about what?
To warn about future failures once dpkg-source fails when there's no
debian/source/format.
Cheers,
--
Rap
#include
* Raphael Hertzog [Sun, Mar 28 2010, 10:51:38AM]:
> > As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
> > ‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in “1.0” source
> > format” since that has no implication that “1.0” is blessed or
> > recommended in any
Ben Finney wrote:
Hi,
> As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
> ‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in “1.0” source
The problem is that if debian/source/format is missing for one reason or
another, your package will be silently built as a 1.0 so
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Ben Finney wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
>
> > Instead what I want is to remove the default altogether so that 1.0 is
> > no longer implicitly blessed/recommended.
>
> As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
> ‘debian/source/format’ always
]] Christian Perrier
[...]
| The next debate to have will come when it's time to change the default
| behaviour of dpkg-source. That debate has been mixed into the current
| discussion and is probably what makes it quite hairy It is very
| obviously controversial to decide when to change the
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> Instead what I want is to remove the default altogether so that 1.0 is
> no longer implicitly blessed/recommended.
As far as I can understand, this is entirely compatible with “absence of
‘debian/source/format’ always means the package is in “1.0” source
format” since t
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> make all the developers manually add this file now so that, at some
> point when all packages have the file, the default can be changed and a
> different set of packages can remove the file again.
During the discussion in this thread I realized that cha
Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org):
(following up on Steve's mail but that's more a summary of my own
feelings about this topic)
> Fundamentally, I don't think that's a responsible decision for the dpkg
> maintainers to make. You're making busywork for maintainers, and conflict
> for you
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If what you care about is the format used by *new* packages, I think you
> should focus on making sure the templates maintainers are using (such as
> dh-make) set the desired default explicitly. That would have an *immediate*
> payoff...
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:25:38AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Now all I need is for dpkg to accept that the absence of
> > debian/source/format is declarative of source format 1.0.
> That's the case _for now_.
> > packages don't need to be chan
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:28:58PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> Again from Wouter's comments:
> "It is of course perfectly fine for dpkg-source to error out if it
> detects that things are not completely in order, or if it detects that
> features were requested that are not supported with the sour
OoO En ce début de soirée du jeudi 25 mars 2010, vers 21:06, Neil
Williams disait :
> Removing the tag without fixing dpkg to not require
> debian/source/format for source format 1.0 packages. That bug does need
> to be fixed. I've only altered a few of my packages in SVN - none of
> those
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> I don't see any significant difference in the wording,
Excellent, then I succeeded. If the people who were upset think it's
better and you don't see a difference, that's exactly the balance that I
was trying to strike.
> the major change is the priority which simply m
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> What is the use case of a default format if all packages provide
> debian/source/format ?
The default source format is required for backwards compatibility. I can't
simply make the build fail if debian/source/format doesn't exist!
But you're right tha
Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Friday, den 26. March 2010:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > > Note that the lintian message specifically requests to contact us if you
> > > decide to stick with 1.0 for such a technical reason. That's done that way
> > > s
On 25/03/2010 20:12, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> - I'm still undecided whether I will change the default format in
> dpkg-source but obviously once all packages provide
> debian/source/format, I will be able to make the change without much bad
> impact.
What is the use case of a default format
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:32:21 +
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:13:01AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > The long tag description probably could be improved to make it clearer
> > that the intention isn't to be a cudgel.
>
> Unfortunately pretty much any lintian warning ends u
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:19:41PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 25.03.2010, 16:16 + schrieb Philipp Kern:
> > On 2010-03-25, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > I’d expect it to be much smoother for an organization that uses Debian
> > > tools and works with us to add missing fu
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:13:01AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The long tag description probably could be improved to make it clearer
> that the intention isn't to be a cudgel.
Unfortunately pretty much any lintian warning ends up being a cudgel if
it's enabled by default since zero lintian warn
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:19:41PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Why is there no dak and wanna-build package? Are there plans to create
> such packages?
There used to be a dak package but it ended up lagging very badly behind
the actual dak code because it needed some database schema upgrades as
On Fri Mar 26 10:11, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:17:30 +0100, Raphael Hertzog
> wrote:
> >My goal as dpkg maintainer is that Debian converts the maximum number of
> >source packages to the new source formats in the shortest timeframe. (You
> >might not share this goal but that's ano
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:17:30 +0100, Raphael Hertzog
wrote:
>My goal as dpkg maintainer is that Debian converts the maximum number of
>source packages to the new source formats in the shortest timeframe. (You
>might not share this goal but that's another matter)
Do you really need a tech ctte deci
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Now all I need is for dpkg to accept that the absence of
> > debian/source/format is declarative of source format 1.0.
>
> That's the case _for now_.
You seem to imply that the meaning of the above situation is subject to
ch
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > Note that the lintian message specifically requests to contact us if you
> > decide to stick with 1.0 for such a technical reason. That's done that way
> > so that I can help resolve those problems. No later than this morni
Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Note that the lintian message specifically requests to contact us if you
> decide to stick with 1.0 for such a technical reason. That's done that way
> so that I can help resolve those problems. No later than this morning I
> contacted the launchpad guys to allow new sou
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> Now all I need is for dpkg to accept that the absence of
> debian/source/format is declarative of source format 1.0.
That's the case _for now_.
> packages don't need to be changed merely to state the obvious.
They need because the dpkg maintainers ha
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If it's really so important to the dpkg maintainers that source format 1.0
> is declared, why doesn't dpkg-source -b *generate* this content
> automatically as part of the .diff.gz so that maintainers aren't being asked
> to take a manual action to asser
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:30:28 -0700
Russ Allbery wrote:
> this at this point. I've changed the severity to wishlist instead,
> which I think more accurately reflects the current severity of this
> request.
That's fair.
> N: missing-debian-source-format
> N:
> N: To allow for possible f
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 08:47:22AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
> > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > debian/source/format, I'll override the lintian warning until dpkg
> > > is fixed. (Already done that for a few packages.)
> > Doing that means “I don't want
I revisited both the Lintian tag and the long description in light of this
discussion and some private feedback, and for the next release of Lintian
have tentatively made the following changes:
* The tag was previously severity: normal. Lintian tag severities should
match bug severities were on
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> There might be not short term benefit for the current maintainer, but
> it's a benefit for our derivatives distributions to be able to simply add
> patches in a consistent manner. It will also be a benefit for Debian if in
> 2 years some newbie packager doesn't have to lea
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> > debian/source/format, I'll override the lintian warning until dpkg
> > is fixed. (Already done that for a few packages.)
>
> Doing that means “I don't want to hardcode the format to use, I want
> to use whatever the dpkg main
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:42:59 +0100
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Agreed, although I think the real bug is in dpkg not being able to
> > cope without a new file.
>
> In what way dpkg doesn't cope?
I'm not sure, I got that impression - otherwise why do ex
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Neil Williams wrote:
> Agreed, although I think the real bug is in dpkg not being able to
> cope without a new file.
In what way dpkg doesn't cope?
The change requested by the lintian tag is preventive, not corrective.
> The idea that all source packages are going to have t
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Simon Richter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:10:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Yes. I explicitly declined to add a Lintian tag warning about all use of
> > format 1.0 because I don't believe there's consensus to deprecate it. But
> > the request to note the format e
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:42:20 -0700
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Colin Tuckley writes:
I wasn't going to contribute to this thread but the initial bun fight
seems to have calmed down and people are starting to talk sense. I'll
do everything I can to keep it that way by ignoring unhelpful comments.
> >
Hi,
Russ Allbery (25/03/2010):
> Well, certainly the goal of Lintian is not to produce tags for which
> the project consensus is that nothing should be done about. If
> people don't feel like this is a good idea, we can remove it. It
> made sense to me personally, but that isn't a deciding crit
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:10:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Yes. I explicitly declined to add a Lintian tag warning about all use of
> format 1.0 because I don't believe there's consensus to deprecate it. But
> the request to note the format explicitly seemed reasonable to me.
I think
Colin Tuckley writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Yes. I explicitly declined to add a Lintian tag warning about all use
>> of format 1.0 because I don't believe there's consensus to deprecate
>> it. But the request to note the format explicitly seemed reasonable to
>> me.
> I disagree - my packag
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Yes. I explicitly declined to add a Lintian tag warning about all use of
> format 1.0 because I don't believe there's consensus to deprecate it. But
> the request to note the format explicitly seemed reasonable to me.
I disagree - my packages are in source format 1, I shou
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>
> > And the lintian warning goes away by explicitly setting source format to
> > 1, so that's not standardizing on the "set of improved source formats"
> > /anyway/, that's just nagging maintainers to make a change to their
> > p
Steve Langasek writes:
> And the lintian warning goes away by explicitly setting source format to
> 1, so that's not standardizing on the "set of improved source formats"
> /anyway/, that's just nagging maintainers to make a change to their
> packages that AFAICS only helps your real goal if they
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:58:39PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> Why are you insisting that all DDs should switch when switching is an
>> effort for no benefit[1] and not switching is no effort at all ?
> In fact, I don't feel this is the point [1]. The new lintian wa
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:19:41PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Why is there no dak and wanna-build package? Are there plans to create
> such packages?
This does not truly answer your question, but since my theory would
be unpleasant to the members of core teams, I offer you this instead:
http:
Benjamin Drung wrote:
Hi,
> Is there a plan for making the installation of dak easier?
The issue (if there actually is an issue there, which is debatable) is
not so much that dak is hard to install (because it's such a beast and
the documentation isn't exactly stellar) but rather that dak is ve
Am Donnerstag, den 25.03.2010, 17:57 +0100 schrieb Julien BLACHE:
> Benjamin Drung wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Why is there no dak and wanna-build package? Are there plans to create
> > such packages?
>
> Have you ever tried to install dak?
No.
> If you have, then the answer should be obvious to you
Benjamin Drung wrote:
Hi,
> Why is there no dak and wanna-build package? Are there plans to create
> such packages?
Have you ever tried to install dak?
If you have, then the answer should be obvious to you. If you haven't,
try it someday, and you'll understand.
JB.
--
Julien BLACHE - Debia
Am Donnerstag, den 25.03.2010, 16:16 + schrieb Philipp Kern:
> On 2010-03-25, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > I’d expect it to be much smoother for an organization that uses Debian
> > tools and works with us to add missing functionality in them if needed,
> > than for an organization that uses it
On 2010-03-25, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I’d expect it to be much smoother for an organization that uses Debian
> tools and works with us to add missing functionality in them if needed,
> than for an organization that uses its own tools.
You seriously don't want to force dak upon everyone. And t
Le jeudi 25 mars 2010 à 08:40 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > While it is interesting to know that the lack of Ubuntu involvement into
> > Debian can also lead to major breakage on your side,
> But even if the fault lies entirely with Ubuntu and you think Ubuntu is evil
> and should be disrega
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:07:59PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> For zless, people seem to open the debian.tar with vim or similar but I
> can understand that it's less usable than a simple pager view of the
> relevant files. Maybe it's a good idea to provide a debreview/debinspect
> command in
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 03:39:11PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 25 mars 2010 à 06:36 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > Which derivative distribution has asked for this? Speaking with my Ubuntu
> > hat on, the sudden arrival of 3.0 in sid (yes, we knew it was coming
> > eventually, b
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And the lintian warning goes away by explicitly setting source format to 1,
> so that's not standardizing on the "set of improved source formats"
> /anyway/, that's just nagging maintainers to make a change to their packages
> that AFAICS only helps your
Le jeudi 25 mars 2010 à 06:36 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> Which derivative distribution has asked for this? Speaking with my Ubuntu
> hat on, the sudden arrival of 3.0 in sid (yes, we knew it was coming
> eventually, but had no inkling of a probable timeline until it was already
> done) has
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:03:09PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > 2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
> > >I have explained you that I belie
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > 2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
> >I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons for
> >switching (I won't repeat the wiki p
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:58:39PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Why are you insisting that all DDs should switch when switching is an
> effort for no benefit[1] and not switching is no effort at all ?
In fact, I don't feel this is the point [1]. The new lintian warning,
which triggered the various
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 01:24:17PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
[…]
>> Besides, may I remind you the existence of this page
>> http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/NewDebFormats ?
>
> May I remind that several persons pointed out this was not a good goal ?
>
This is not a reaso
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 01:24:17PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> 2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
> >>I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> 2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
>>I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons for
>>switching (I won't repeat the wiki page). Why are you insist
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Responding to
> http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/serendipity/index.php?/archives/201-lintian,-source-format-3.0-and-blog-comments.html:
Thanks, Raphael, for bringing this to a proper place!
> 1/ Instead of taking 30 minut
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 2/ You explain that you have no reason to switch to the new formats. Fine.
>I have explained you that I believe there are good reasons for
>switching (I won't repeat the wiki page). Why are you insisting to not
>switch w
Hi,
Responding to
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/serendipity/index.php?/archives/201-lintian,-source-format-3.0-and-blog-comments.html:
1/ Instead of taking 30 minutes to explain why you don't care of the new
formats, it would have been way more useful to apply the patch
sitting in http:/
87 matches
Mail list logo
