Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 21:09:55 +0200 Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > Hello Neil, > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 04:13:15PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > > Time to launch the debate on the Draft TDeb Specification - DEP-4. > > > > Current HTML form: http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/tdeb/ > > ... > > > Disc

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

Hello Neil, On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 04:13:15PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > Time to launch the debate on the Draft TDeb Specification - DEP-4. > > Current HTML form: http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/tdeb/ ... > Discuss. just out of curiosity, is this still an active proposal, especially sinc

Re: Re: .tdeb format (DEP-4: The TDeb specification.)

Neil Williams wrote: On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:23:37 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > In a similar way to udebs. The .tdeb needs to be handled differently by > > package management tools (things like reprepro and dak) so that uploads > > of TDebs can be made by translation teams, so that the exis

Re: Re: tdiff (DEP-4: The TDeb specification.)

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:57:30 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: (Could you add a blank line between the quoted reply and your content? It makes the content easier for me to read. Thanks.) I'll try to. > Neil Williams wrot

Re: tdiff (DEP-4: The TDeb specification.)

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:57:30 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: (Could you add a blank line between the quoted reply and your content? It makes the content easier for me to read. Thanks.) > Neil Williams wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:13:19 -0400 > > Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > > > > > > > > That

Re: .tdeb format (DEP-4: The TDeb specification.)

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:23:37 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > In a similar way to udebs. The .tdeb needs to be handled differently by > > package management tools (things like reprepro and dak) so that uploads > > of TDebs can be made by translation teams, so that the existing source > > package

.tdeb format (DEP-4: The TDeb specification.)

> > Package management tools need a way to tell a .deb from a .tdeb - the > > two need to be handled differently by tools like dak, britney, apt, > > dpkg, reprepro, deb-gview and others. > Do you mean that package management tools need a way to tell a > traditional/current .deb from a package

tdiff (DEP-4: The TDeb specification.)

Neil Williams wrote: On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:13:19 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > > > > That would be a nice improvement, but let me suggest another > > > > > implementation. To avoid introducing a second diff, why not updating the > > > > > regular diff (in the case of non-native packages)

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:13:19 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > > > > That would be a nice improvement, but let me suggest another > > > > > implementation. To avoid introducing a second diff, why not updating > > > > > the > > > > > regular diff (in the case of non-native packages) but indicat

Re: Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

Neil Williams wrote: On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:45:46 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: [...] > > > That would be a nice improvement, but let me suggest another > > > implementation. To avoid introducing a second diff, why not updating the > > > regular

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:45:46 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: Please note: All of the implementation details can wait until after Squeeze - all that is needed for this release cycle is that apt and dpkg can handle a migration from Squeeze to Squeeze+1 where packages being upgraded may use TDebs for

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:46:48 +0100 Ian Jackson wrote: > Neil Williams writes ("Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification."): > > On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:06:35 -0400 > > Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > > What is the purpose of creating a new binary package format for this

Re: Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:21:59 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: > That would be a nice improvement, but let me suggest another > implementation. To avoid introducing a second diff, why not updating the > regular diff (in the case of non-native packages) but indicating that > the package shouldn't

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

Neil Williams writes ("Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification."): > On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:06:35 -0400 > Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > What is the purpose of creating a new binary package format for this (as > > opposed to reusing, say, the deb format)? > > T

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:21:59 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: > That would be a nice improvement, but let me suggest another > implementation. To avoid introducing a second diff, why not updating the > regular diff (in the case of non-native packages) but indicating that > the package shouldn't b

Re: Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

Neil Williams wrote: On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:06:35 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: > Neil Williams wrote: > > Primary Motivations (in order): > >1. Updates to translations should not require source NMU's. > > > I guess

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:06:35 -0400 Filipus Klutiero wrote: > Neil Williams wrote: > > Primary Motivations (in order): > >1. Updates to translations should not require source NMU's. > > > I guess that means avoiding to NMU with new diff.gz -s? If so, what are > the underlying motivations?

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

Neil Williams wrote: Primary Motivations (in order): 1. Updates to translations should not require source NMU's. I guess that means avoiding to NMU with new diff.gz -s? If so, what are the underlying motivations? What is the purpose of creating a new binary package format for this (as o

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:35:59 +0100 Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:31:29AM +, Neil Williams wrote: > > Why should 3.0 be any more difficult than 1.0 or anything that follows? > > (Not that I have any particular desire to use 3.0 or quilt myself.) 3.0 > > has to deal with in

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:31:29AM +, Neil Williams wrote: > Why should 3.0 be any more difficult than 1.0 or anything that follows? > (Not that I have any particular desire to use 3.0 or quilt myself.) 3.0 > has to deal with incorporating patches and changes from the BTS, so > +t1.diff.gz is n

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:13:03 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:25:40AM +, Neil Williams a écrit : > > > > Maintainers will be creating TDebs in Squeeze+1, using debian/rules, > > using debhelper calls and uploading TDebs each time they would > > currently upload any pa

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

Le Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:25:40AM +, Neil Williams a écrit : > > Maintainers will be creating TDebs in Squeeze+1, using debian/rules, > using debhelper calls and uploading TDebs each time they would > currently upload any package that contains /usr/share/locale/LC_*/ etc. > Those TDebs are, e

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:26:30 -0500 Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17 2009, Neil Williams wrote: > > >> Do you prevent mixing old and new .debs and .tdebs? > > > > Changes to translations use +t1.diff.gz etc. > > > >> How do you merge data from a new package into the tdeb data? > > > > T

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Tue, Mar 17 2009, Neil Williams wrote: >> Do you prevent mixing old and new .debs and .tdebs? > > Changes to translations use +t1.diff.gz etc. > >> How do you merge data from a new package into the tdeb data? > > The real question is how to get apt to understand getting the > +t1.diff.gz whe

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:22:19 +0100 Loïc Minier wrote: > > Current HTML form: http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/tdeb/ > > So do I understand correctly that there might be one .tdeb per package > and per language unless maintainers merge regularly the contents into > their source packages? Ho

Re: DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

> Current HTML form: http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/tdeb/ So do I understand correctly that there might be one .tdeb per package and per language unless maintainers merge regularly the contents into their source packages? How many .tdebs files does that imply in the main archive? It se

DEP-4: The TDeb specification.

(No need to CC: me on either debian-devel or debian-i18n, thanks.) Time to launch the debate on the Draft TDeb Specification - DEP-4. Current HTML form: http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/tdeb/ SGML form for modification: svn://svn.debian.org/dep/web/deps/ (Draft.sgml - please notify me if the S