On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:50:51PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > Yes. Precisely because there is collaboration between both sides on those
> > packages.
> [..]
>
> I agree.
>
> While epochs are nasty and ,
> having this one more doesn't really hurt anyone and makes a
> maintainer's life easi
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 12:49:38 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an important
> > downstream's epoch?
> Yes. Precisely because there is collaboration between both sides on those
> packages.
[..]
I a
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:41:02PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> I appreciate your thinking of possible solutions, but my understanding
> is that Canonical isn't investing in any more Launchpad work than is
> necessary.
This overstates the case a bit. It's true that we don't have a large
number of
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:32:31AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:48 PM Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an important
> > downstream's epoch?
>
> An alternative might be for Launchpad to allow whitelisted downgrades
> of source p
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an important
> downstream's epoch?
Yes. Precisely because there is collaboration between both sides on those
packages.
The attitude "we don't care of mistakes made by derivatives" is
counter-produc
Hi Jeremy,
My comments below for what it's worth. You should likely not
take anything I say too seriously, but maybe I happen to mention
something that can be food for thought.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 09:47:38AM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Emailing both debian-devel and the Debian GNOME mailing
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:33 PM Paul Wise wrote:
> FTR, this is currently this set of changes:
>
> https://patches.ubuntu.com/g/gnome-calculator/gnome-calculator_1:3.30.0-1ubuntu1.patch
Yes, I felt my email was getting a bit long. Ubuntu's gnome-calculator
now has some patches that depend on prop
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:48 PM Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> A month later, a Debian GNOME team member recognized that we could use
> a dh_gencontrol hack [1] to only add the epoch to the gcalctool
> transitional package and we didn't need an epoch for gnome-calculator.
I wouldn't characterise this as a
Hi Jonathan, and Jeremy and others,
Quoting Jonathan Carter (2018-09-26 20:45:13)
> On 26/09/2018 16:59, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> More recently, I have worked to reduce the difference between Debian
>>> and Ubuntu packaging for many GNOME packages. It gets very tedious
>>> to need to upload g
Am 26.09.2018 um 15:47 schrieb Jeremy Bicha:
> So is it appropriate to bump an epoch in Debian to match an important
> downstream's epoch?
I don't think it is.
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Des
Hey Jonas
On 26/09/2018 16:59, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> More recently, I have worked to reduce the difference between Debian
>> and Ubuntu packaging for many GNOME packages. It gets very tedious to
>> need to upload gnome-calculator in Debian and then do a separate
>> upload in Ubuntu (along wit
Quoting Jeremy Bicha (2018-09-26 15:47:38)
> Emailing both debian-devel and the Debian GNOME mailing list.
>
> I am requesting project approval for me to upload gnome-calculator
> with an epoch.
>
> Five years ago, gcalctool 6.4 was renamed to gnome-calculator and
> renumbered to 3.8. This seemed
12 matches
Mail list logo
