On 08/04/2010 14:33, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>> Hm, making git-core a dummy/transitional package, which pulls the "git"
>> package
>> on upgrades sounds like a better idea to me.
>> Otherwise git won't be updated when going from lenny to squeeze.
>
> Gerr
Joey Hess wrote:
> You forgot to include packages that Suggest git-core in the list.
The only package with a versioned Suggest of git-core I found was
moap, which I did include. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if I missed
something for some other reason.
For what it’s worth, the list of affected
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> A list of affected packages follows.
You forgot to include packages that Suggest git-core in the list.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Michael,
Michael Biebl wrote:
> Hm, making git-core a dummy/transitional package, which pulls the "git"
> package
> on upgrades sounds like a better idea to me.
> Otherwise git won't be updated when going from lenny to squeeze.
Gerrit Pape implemented what I think is a nicer method: git-core
Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 23:10:31 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
>> Now that there is a package available to test with, I would like to
>> file bugs for the affected packages suggesting this change. I suggest
>> an RC severity since it would be nice to have the name change
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 23:10:31 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Now that there is a package available to test with, I would like to
> file bugs for the affected packages suggesting this change. I suggest
> an RC severity since it would be nice to have the name change in
> squeeze. I am therefor
> > Well, except _not_ to abet the hostile takeover of a
> > project name that has been around since ... I don't know,
> > but the Debian package goes back to 1997.
[Jon Dowland]
> In what way is it hostile?
It is hostile in the sense that nobody in Linus-git went to GNU-git
to ask permission be
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:23:52AM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> gnuit already Conflicts and Replaces git (< 4.9.2-1). It also Provides
> git. This Provides should, I believe, be removed for either squeeze or
> squeeze+1.
My recent upload of gnuit (4.9.5-2, which just hit testing),
removes the P
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:30:11PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> I believe the upstream was last modified in 1997. So that's
> 12 years of "seniority", but it's also 12 years in which
> the upstream source was essentially unmaintained. If we
> really did decide that our priority was packages, rather
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Peter Samuelson
wrote:
> Well, except _not_ to abet the hostile takeover of a
> project name that has been around since ... I don't know,
> but the Debian package goes back to 1997.
In what way is it hostile? Do you really believe that
leaving things the w
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:06:02PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Note that adding a release (squeeze) without a git package will not
> solve the problem: the git/lenny package will not be removed from
> the system without an explicit action of the administrator.
> And the administrator can alread
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:10:45PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:06:02PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> > I cannot see a good solution here.
>
> Well, the obvious solution is to include it in the Release Notes.
That would just spam and mud down the Notes.
The "w
[Vincent Danjean]
> I cannot see a good solution here.
Well, except _not_ to abet the hostile takeover of a project name that
has been around since ... I don't know, but the Debian package goes
back to 1997.
I know git is the awesomest thing since tla, but I'm disappointed that
8 or 9 years of
* Marvin Renich [090917 11:40]:
> I do not know how aptitude deals with the automatic/manual flag in this
> case, though. Suppose a user has etch installed with git 4.3.20-10
> (marked as manual in aptitude). The upgrade to lenny will bring in
> gnuit 4.9.4-1; I think aptitude will mark it autom
* Vincent Danjean [090917 11:05]:
> There is no way APT (or dpkg) knows that git/lenny should be remove
> instead of being 'upgraded' in git/squeeze.
>
> Note that adding a release (squeeze) without a git package will not
> solve the problem: the git/lenny package will not be removed from
> the s
* Leandro Doctors [090917 10:41]:
> 2009/9/17 Marvin Renich :
> > But, if I were a gnuit user and not a git-core user, I would find it
> > annoying (and possibly confusing) when upgrading from lenny to squeeze
> > to have a new package added that I didn't want and that is completely
> > unrelated
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:06:02PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> I cannot see a good solution here.
Well, the obvious solution is to include it in the Release Notes.
Best Regards,
Patrick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
Leandro Doctors wrote:
> 2009/9/17 Marvin Renich :
>> But, if I were a gnuit user and not a git-core user, I would find it
>> annoying (and possibly confusing) when upgrading from lenny to squeeze
>> to have a new package added that I didn't want and that is completely
>> unrelated to anything I ha
* Gerrit Pape [090917 05:18]:
> Hi,
>
> thanks to Ian Beckwith, the GNU Interactive Tools package 'git' has been
> renamed to 'gnuit' in lenny. In lenny 'git' is a transitional package
> that depends on gnuit, in squeeze and sid there's no 'git' package
> anymore.
>
> I'm about to provide a new
Gerrit Pape (17/09/2009):
> I'm about to provide a new git binary package from the git-core (the
> distributed revision control system) source, so that 'apt-get
> install git' installs the git content tracker in squeeze.
Nice. :)
> For people upgrading from lenny with git (from gnuit) installed,
20 matches
Mail list logo
