On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:22:06PM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:26:44AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't
> > > use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be f
"Artur R. Czechowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:26:44AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't
> > > use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to
> > > car
Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> What's about dh_undocumented looking like:
> --
> #!/bin/bash
> if [ $FORCE_UNDOCUMENTED = 1 ]; then
> echo You are still using dh_undocumented which is obsoleted.
> echo Stop it.
> else
> echo You are using obsoleted dh_undocumented in your debian
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:26:44AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't
> > use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to
> > care.
> No. Breaking 400+ packages so our uses cannot build them
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 08:51:27PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:43:56PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't
> > > use me" as the next step? That way a
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:43:56PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't
> > use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to
> > care.
>
> this will still create fa
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:43:56PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Could the dh_undocumented programm allways fail with an error "Don't
> use me" as the next step? That way all new uploads will be forced to
> care.
this will still create fail to build bugs for no good reason.
Greetings
Bernd
--
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> > > OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior
> > > notice? "This program does nothing and should no longer be used."
> >
> > As a rule I try to avoid causing less than
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> > OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior
> > notice? "This program does nothing and should no longer be used."
>
> As a rule I try to avoid causing less than 469 FTBFS bugs with any given
> chang
Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior
> notice? "This program does nothing and should no longer be used."
As a rule I try to avoid causing less than 469 FTBFS bugs with any given
change I make to debhelper. I have removed programs when
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:57:54PM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> I think that next step to be taken is informing concerned developers
> by email (debian-devel isn't obligatory).
This is not needed, it is included in the policy change document. All
developers who upgrade the policy standard w
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:27:35PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> It _is_ already the case, also for linda. And you can get results
> quite easy from
> http://lintian.debian.org/reports/Tlink-to-undocumented-manpage.html
This is treated by lintian as a warning. Policy says, that lack of manpage
is c
* Bernd Eckenfels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030704 20:50]:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:24:20PM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> > OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior
> > notice? "This program does nothing and should no longer be used."
> well, this would break co
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:24:20PM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> OTOH, maybe dh_undocumented should be removed from debhelper with prior
> notice? "This program does nothing and should no longer be used."
well, this would break compatibility. IMHO i think it is enough to add a
lintian check
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 05:59:57PM +0200, Benjamin Drieu wrote:
> This doesn't help if you maintain dozens of packages and you just want
> to know if one of your packages is offending.
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 06:18:06PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Uhm, it's far easier just to generate the list
* "Artur R. Czechowski"
| On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > | I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a
| > | quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result:
| > Such a list is useless unless it includes maintainer address
"Artur R. Czechowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> | I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a
>> | quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result:
>> Such a list is useless unless it inclu
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a
> | quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result:
> Such a list is useless unless it includes maintainer addresses (or
> just maintainer names) as
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
> I've recently revamped my debhelper graph page to make it easier to
> track deprecated programs. The ones that don't seem likely to go away at
> all soon are dh_installmanpages and dh_movefiles.
Especially since some of us do like dh_movefiles a LOT :-)
--
* Goswin Brederlow
| I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a
| quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result:
[...]
Such a list is useless unless it includes maintainer addresses (or
just maintainer names) as well.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
* Goswin Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030704 05:35]:
> I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a
> quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result:
> [...]
> libapache-mod-dav
You must have done something wrong as since 1.0.3-6 dh_undocumented is
not long
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> I came accross some sources still using dh_undocumented so I did a
> quick search through sids *.diff.gz files. Here is the result:
At prsent rates, I expect we will be down to maybe 50 packages calling
this in 1 year's time, at which point some bug reports could be filed
22 matches
Mail list logo
