On 11/11/19 6:30 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Yes, and that's why I use debian/master instead of debian/buster or
> debian/bullseye. :-)
>
> When I do create debian/buster (once it became the stable branch), the
> first thing I did after I branched off debian/buster from
> debian/master was t
On 11/14/19 1:59 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Let me try to be more specific. Many packages are maintained by people
> who use gbp. Many packages have pristine-tar branches but do not have
> "pristine-tar = True" set. When I work on one of these packages (and I
> work on many packages with many mainta
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 19:59:07 -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Let me try to be more specific. Many packages are maintained by people
> who use gbp. Many packages have pristine-tar branches but do not have
> "pristine-tar = True" set. When I work on one of these packages (and I
> work on many package
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:23 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/11/19 12:50 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > It is absolutely not possible to set the correct
> > pristine-tar=True/False in ~/.gbp.conf to work with your packages
> > (which avoid pristine-tar) and the vast majority of gbp packages in
> > D
On 11/13/19 1:53 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Except for not agreeing with your opinion about pristine-tar I agree that
> debian/gbp.conf is frequently not very helpful and flooded with unneeded
> options sometimes. It really makes sense to use ~/.gbp.conf instead.
This was the single and only poin
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:23:08AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> If you're rebuilding a package which is already in the archive, you're
> supposed to take the .orig.tar.xz from the archive, and if not, you're
> supposed to generate it with git archive (or with the shortcut for that
> command: .
On 11/11/19 12:50 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:59 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 11/11/19 1:02 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
anyt
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:58:42AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
> >> anything to debian/gbp.conf. It's as if you were adding your text editor
> >> preferences in the package. Instead, please prefer writing in ~/.gbp.conf.
> >
>
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:59 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/11/19 1:02 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>
> >> Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
> >> anything to debian/gbp.conf. It's as if you were
On 11/11/19 1:02 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>> Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
>> anything to debian/gbp.conf. It's as if you were adding your text editor
>> preferences in the package. Instead, p
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
> anything to debian/gbp.conf. It's as if you were adding your text editor
> preferences in the package. Instead, please prefer writing in ~/.gbp.conf.
I keep most
On 10/5/19 7:48 PM, Attila Szalay wrote:
> I added the "pbuilder-options = --source-only-changes" option to the
> [buildpackage] part of the debian/gbp.conf
Please, *never* do that. It's generally a very bad idea to write
anything to debian/gbp.conf. It's as if you were adding your text editor
pre
Am Sonntag, den 06.10.2019, 22:09 +0200 schrieb Bernd Zeimetz:
> Hi,
>
> > I'm struggling with it for a while now and I couldn't find the solution.
> > I have a package maintained with git-buildpackage. And now, that I
> > "cannot" upload binary packages I tried to compile the new version with
> >
Am Sonntag, den 06.10.2019, 11:27 +0200 schrieb Alf Gaida:
> On 06.10.19 08:18, Attila Szalay wrote:
> > That option means that the system will create not only the binary
> > .amd.changes but another changes too which contains only the source
> > packages. And I would like to use this method to be
On 10/6/19 11:15 PM, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
> And what about
>
> dgit --gbp push-source ?
not going to touch that. dgit is imho way to over-engineered while
having requirements at the same time, that I don't want to have (like
using dgit.debian.org...).
We have salsa as central reposit
Hi,
> I'm struggling with it for a while now and I couldn't find the solution.
> I have a package maintained with git-buildpackage. And now, that I
> "cannot" upload binary packages I tried to compile the new version with
> the option to create a source-only changes file too. But for some reason
>
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 6:27 PM Alf Gaida wrote:
>
> On 06.10.19 08:18, Attila Szalay wrote:
> > That option means that the system will create not only the binary
> > .amd.changes but another changes too which contains only the source
> > packages. And I would like to use this method to be sure the
On 06.10.19 08:18, Attila Szalay wrote:
> That option means that the system will create not only the binary
> .amd.changes but another changes too which contains only the source
> packages. And I would like to use this method to be sure the package
> compiles, to be able to run the lintian agains
That option means that the system will create not only the binary
.amd.changes but another changes too which contains only the source
packages. And I would like to use this method to be sure the package
compiles, to be able to run the lintian against the package and even be
able to test it before t
On 05.10.19 23:14, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 10:02:54PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
that is miss something - my point is: Why do you invoke pbuilder (read
the same question about sbuild too) to create pure source packages?
>>> To make sure they build correctly.
>>>
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 10:02:54PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> >> that is miss something - my point is: Why do you invoke pbuilder (read
> >> the same question about sbuild too) to create pure source packages?
> > To make sure they build correctly.
> >
> Ok, checked the calender, it is not April 1. I
On 05.10.19 21:48, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 08:06:56PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
>> that is miss something - my point is: Why do you invoke pbuilder (read
>> the same question about sbuild too) to create pure source packages?
> To make sure they build correctly.
>
Ok, che
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 08:06:56PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> that is miss something - my point is: Why do you invoke pbuilder (read
> the same question about sbuild too) to create pure source packages?
To make sure they build correctly.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 05.10.19 19:48, Attila Szalay wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm struggling with it for a while now and I couldn't find the
> solution. I have a package maintained with git-buildpackage. And now,
> that I "cannot" upload binary packages I tried to compile the new
> version with the option to create a source
Hi,
I'm struggling with it for a while now and I couldn't find the solution. I
have a package maintained with git-buildpackage. And now, that I "cannot"
upload binary packages I tried to compile the new version with the option
to create a source-only changes file too. But for some reason that chan
25 matches
Mail list logo
