Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote: >>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> [...] Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<<

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is very true. I wasn't aware of the SVN repository until it was > mentioned in this thread. Over the weekend, I have merged almost all > the SVN changes: Many thanks for the work. It is greatly appreciated. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Last year the aim was to get the buildd sbuild and debian sbuild back >> in sync and it pains me to see Ryan silently diferting it

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote: >> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild >> > (the cvs

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Hi, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh schrieb: > We really need another substvar with different semantics. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/09/msg01251.html Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote: >> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [...] >>> Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<< >>> {Upstream-Version}), (>= {Upstream-Version}.1). >>

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:42:41 -0200]: > Yes. It is just a matter of which one you like better. You could also have > one depends and one conflicts instead of two conflicts or two depends. Versioned conflicts are said to increase apt's trouble to upgrade from one sta

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<< > > {Upstream-Version}), (>= {Upstream-Version}.1). > > Depends: foo (>={Upstream-Version}), foo (<< {Upstream-Ver

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: (<< > {Upstream-Version}), (>= {Upstream-Version}.1). Depends: foo (>={Upstream-Version}), foo (<< {Upstream-Version}.1) instead should also work without the need for

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > OK. So I was working on the problem of fixing dpkg-dev so that > > foo Depends: foo-data {SourceVersion}, foo-libs {BinaryVersion} > > or something similar actually works. By parsing the version numbers. I'd very much like debhelper or dpkg-* to g

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Blrgh! OK. So I was working on the problem of fixing dpkg-dev so that foo Depends: foo-data {SourceVersion}, foo-libs {BinaryVersion} or something similar actually works. By parsing the version numbers. Now it's apparently been changed under our noses, in such a way that my proposed sch

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> >> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > They w

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:03:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> It just pains me that Debian does not include all the software to >> build Debian. > > Sure it does. It just doesn't include the software that Debian uses to > automatically build

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:03:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It's in Debian, and it's easy to use and understand. If it doesn't > > diverge too far from the sbuild actually on svn.cyberhqz.com, it's also > > good enough to give you a workin

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it si

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Adeodato "=?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Goswin von Brederlow [Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:51:24 +0100]: > > Hi, > >> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's >> > diverged a bit from the code you're main

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's >> > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining. >> >> Th

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:44:42PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> >> If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I personally see the packages in unstable as something good for >> > end-users who want to use it, or understand how the system wo

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Michael Banck wrote: > 1. Please drop the `secret' immediately. Unless you really want to call > http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd `secret'. That your mail got resent > with the this subject to debian-devel-announce is already stressing it > *a lot*, IMHO. I did the forward

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

* Goswin von Brederlow [Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:51:24 +0100]: Hi, > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's > > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining. > Then he should send patches and bug reports to the debian >

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's > > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining. > > Then he should send patches and bug reports to the d

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:44:42PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > >> (the cvs, not deb) > > > > P

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I personally see the packages in unstable as something good for > > end-users who want to use it, or understand how the system works; but > > for Debian's purposes, it's not optim

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining. Then he should send patches and bug reports to the debian package. This split between the user/developer visible sbuild and the sec

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild >> (the cvs, not deb) > > Patches for the Debian package are welcome, of course. > > > Michael Do you know

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > > (the cvs, not deb) > > Which sbuild CVS repo? It's actually a subversion repository, and it's at

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > > (the cvs, not deb) > > Which sbuild CVS repo? It is a SVN repo now, the one used by the buildd infra

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > (the cvs, not deb) Which sbuild CVS repo? I'll be happy to merge the changes into the official sbuild package (buildd-tools

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > (the cvs, not deb) Patches for the Debian package are welcome, of course. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ad

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> - buildds can recompile a source with a binNMU version > > We were told about this, although I can't recall if the proper channel > (d-d-a) was used. > > Would you consider posting your me

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051123 15:51]: >> - binNMU version scheme changed >> >> The developer reference _still_ states binNMU should be versioned as >> 1.2-3.0.1. The DAK will no longer accept this. > > I am sorry that the develo

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > - buildds can recompile a source with a binNMU version We were told about this, although I can't recall if the proper channel (d-d-a) was used. Would you consider posting your message to debian-devel-announce, please? That's where such extremely

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051123 15:51]: > - binNMU version scheme changed > > The developer reference _still_ states binNMU should be versioned as > 1.2-3.0.1. The DAK will no longer accept this. I am sorry that the developers reference is a bit lagging currently. Do you ha