On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 3:34 AM Paul Wise wrote:
>
> Repology gets you mappings for all the source packages in Debian in one
> download (assuming it has an export of the mappings, that may need to
> be added), while the Anitya mapping requires a human to manually add a
> mapping for each of the tho
On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 02:43:56AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think that there's a security consideration associated with all these
> proposals for externalizing finding upstream updates. Currently watch files
> and at least the redirectors I know of all run on Debian infrastructure or on
>
On 2021-12-03 00:51, Paul Wise wrote:
> The one issue I can think of with using release-monitoring.org is that
> Debian becomes more reliant on an external service, while currently we
> are completely independent of other distros for version checking.
>
> Converting the release-monitoring.org che
On 05/12/2021 10:26, Timo Röhling wrote:
Hi Yadd,
thank you very much for your work on uscan. That new version 5
format looks really promising.
* Yadd [2021-12-01 09:11]:
* Version 5:
* Main (first) paragraph contains "Version: 5" and optional options
that change default values for sour
Hi Yadd,
thank you very much for your work on uscan. That new version 5
format looks really promising.
* Yadd [2021-12-01 09:11]:
* Version 5:
* Main (first) paragraph contains "Version: 5" and optional options
that change default values for source-paragraph
* URL and regex are separat
On December 5, 2021 1:51:48 AM UTC, Paul Wise wrote:
>On Sat, 2021-12-04 at 02:43 +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> I think that there's a security consideration associated with all these
>> proposals for externalizing finding upstream updates.
>
>Good point.
>
>> If one of these services wer
On Sat, 2021-12-04 at 02:43 +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think that there's a security consideration associated with all these
> proposals for externalizing finding upstream updates.
Good point.
> If one of these services were ever compromised it would provide a
> vector for offering subst
On 01/12/2021 22:16, Yadd wrote:
On 01/12/2021 21:07, Patrice wrote:
Really great!
And could the new uscan read a watch file from version 3/4/5 and output a
version 5 of it by its own (in-place or stdout)?
uscan --standardize
:-)
Yes but without optimization neither scheme (except some few fi
On Sat, 04 Dec 2021 at 10:33:55 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> The other issue with using Anitya is that Debian and Fedora have
> different policies and culture for choosing which upstream versions to
> update to. Debian strongly prefers LTS versions while Fedora are all
> about the latest and greatest,
On December 3, 2021 12:12:47 PM UTC, Stephan Lachnit
wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:52 PM Paul Wise wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 23:36 +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
>>
>> > If I understand correctly, release-monitoring already offers such a
>> > mapping [1].
>>
>> It seems like the A
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 13:12 +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> I mean it looks rather easy to do, just a couple of mouse clicks.
> Compare that to writing a watch file at the moment (assuming one has
> to do more than copy and paste the github example).
Repology gets you mappings for all the source
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:52 PM Paul Wise wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 23:36 +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
>
> > If I understand correctly, release-monitoring already offers such a
> > mapping [1].
>
> It seems like the Ayanita distro mapping needs to be done manually once
> per package, while
On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 23:36 +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> If I understand correctly, release-monitoring already offers such a
> mapping [1].
It seems like the Ayanita distro mapping needs to be done manually once
per package, while using the Repology data would automatically get us
the mapping
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021, 23:17 Paul Wise, wrote:
> At minimum we would need a way to map from release-monitoring.org
> package names to Debian source package names. Assuming they use Fedora
> source package names, then the Repology service provides such a mapping
> and we could presumably could get a
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021, Paul Wise wrote:
I think this would be the best path forward - it would probably be not
easy given that it changes entirely how the current system works, but
it might be well worth the effort. Working together with another
distribution would share the work for the distro. I'm
On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 10:16 +0100, Yadd wrote:
> Yes but the redirector often responded with 500 codes
500 codes probably just mean bugs in the redirector, which should be
easy to fix for anyone with access to the redirector source code.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signatur
On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 15:57 +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> I think this would be the best path forward - it would probably be not
> easy given that it changes entirely how the current system works, but
> it might be well worth the effort. Working together with another
> distribution would share t
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:51 AM Paul Wise wrote:
>
> It might be a idea to look at how other distributions do checking for
> new upstream releases and adopt some of their improvements.
>
> I note Fedora uses a service (that isn't Fedora specific) for this:
>
> https://release-monitoring.org
> http
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-12-02 13:09:17)
>>
>> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>>
>> > Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-12-02 12:31:30)
>> >>
>> >> Paul Wise writes:
>> >>
>> >> > I also wonder if it is time to split debian/watch out of Debian
>> >> > source packages,
Hi
Le jeu. 2 déc. 2021 à 11:36, Yadd a écrit :
>
> Another idea to have a compromise:
> * uscan is released with versioned schemes (GitHub.json, sf.json,...)
> * when launched, it tries to download new version from a new Debian API
> (static json files)
> * if no response or no new v
Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-12-02 13:09:17)
>
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> > Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-12-02 12:31:30)
> >>
> >> Paul Wise writes:
> >>
> >> > I also wonder if it is time to split debian/watch out of Debian
> >> > source packages, since upstream download locations gener
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-12-02 12:31:30)
>>
>> Paul Wise writes:
>>
>> > I also wonder if it is time to split debian/watch out of Debian
>> > source packages, since upstream download locations generally change
>> > independently of the Debian package and so in
Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-12-02 12:31:30)
>
> Paul Wise writes:
>
> > I also wonder if it is time to split debian/watch out of Debian
> > source packages, since upstream download locations generally change
> > independently of the Debian package and so information about
> > upstream downlo
Paul Wise writes:
> I also wonder if it is time to split debian/watch out of Debian source
> packages, since upstream download locations generally change
> independently of the Debian package and so information about upstream
> download locations probably should be maintained independently.
I v
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:36:08AM +0100, Yadd wrote:
> On 02/12/2021 10:16, Yadd wrote:
> > On 02/12/2021 00:34, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 12:53 +0100, Yadd wrote:
> > >
> > > > Personally I dislike redirectors.
> > >
> > > A redirector service is superior to including the re
On 02/12/2021 10:16, Yadd wrote:
On 02/12/2021 00:34, Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 12:53 +0100, Yadd wrote:
Personally I dislike redirectors.
A redirector service is superior to including the redirector code
within uscan itself or within a debian/watch file, since when the
upstrea
Le 2 décembre 2021 00:34:27 GMT+01:00, Paul Wise a écrit :
>On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 12:53 +0100, Yadd wrote:
>
>> Personally I dislike redirectors.
>
>A redirector service is superior to including the redirector code
>within uscan itself or within a debian/watch file, since when the
>upstream web
On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 09:11 +0100, Yadd wrote:
> after few discussions with some devscripts maintainers, we decided to
> build a new "version=5" format for debian/watch.
It might be a idea to look at how other distributions do checking for
new upstream releases and adopt some of their improvement
On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 12:53 +0100, Yadd wrote:
> sf.net because it needs JS interpretation
The sf.net redirector uses the RSS feed of the files.
This is documented at the top of the redirector HTML:
$ curl -s https://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/NSIS/ | grep -i rss
(https://sourceforge.net/project
On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 12:53 +0100, Yadd wrote:
> Personally I dislike redirectors.
A redirector service is superior to including the redirector code
within uscan itself or within a debian/watch file, since when the
upstream website breaks the existing code, a service can be updated in
one place i
On 01/12/2021 21:07, Patrice wrote:
Really great!
And could the new uscan read a watch file from version 3/4/5 and output a
version 5 of it by its own (in-place or stdout)?
uscan --standardize
:-)
Yes but without optimization neither scheme (except some few fields).
Example:
version=4
Really great!
And could the new uscan read a watch file from version 3/4/5 and output a
version 5 of it by its own (in-place or stdout)?
uscan --standardize
:-)
Wishes,
Patrice
On 01.12.21 12:50, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
Likewise, I would love if uscan could just learn how github, gitlab,
launchpad, etc are made so prople won't have to bother with sticking
urls into watchfiles, such as:
Source: GitHub
Source-Options:
namespace: trendmicro
project: tlsh
On 01/12/2021 18:39, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Hi Yadd,
Thanks a lot for working on this. What you are proposing (ie: using a
mime thing, which is easy to parse instead of the dirty command-line
oriented thingy of version 3 and 4) feels much nicer than what we
currently have.
On 12/1/21 12:53 PM, Y
Hi Yadd,
Thanks a lot for working on this. What you are proposing (ie: using a
mime thing, which is easy to parse instead of the dirty command-line
oriented thingy of version 3 and 4) feels much nicer than what we
currently have.
On 12/1/21 12:53 PM, Yadd wrote:
> Fix: will be
>
> Version: 5
>
Yadd writes:
> after few discussions with some devscripts maintainers, we decided to
> build a new "version=5" format for debian/watch.
> Principles:
> * keep compatibility with versions 3 and 4, no need to change all
>debian/watch files
> * new version 5 format using the same syntax than
On 01/12/2021 13:14, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Yadd (2021-12-01 13:04:09)
On 01/12/2021 12:50, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
Possibly, I'm indeed kind of unimpressed that we grew a parse for
nodejs' package.json and perl's META.json. Though I accepted it
because I saw some value, I'm totally in
Quoting Yadd (2021-12-01 13:04:09)
> On 01/12/2021 12:50, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > Possibly, I'm indeed kind of unimpressed that we grew a parse for
> > nodejs' package.json and perl's META.json. Though I accepted it
> > because I saw some value, I'm totally in awe of universes where that
> >
On 01/12/2021 12:50, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 12:39:41PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
Summary: unhide redirectors
And not only.
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 09:11:17AM +0100, Yadd wrote:
after few discussions with some devscripts maintainers, we decided to build
a new "versi
On 01/12/2021 12:39, Geert Stappers wrote:
Summary: unhide redirectors
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 09:11:17AM +0100, Yadd wrote:
Hi,
after few discussions with some devscripts maintainers, we decided to build
a new "version=5" format for debian/watch.
Principles:
* keep compatibility with versi
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 12:39:41PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> Summary: unhide redirectors
And not only.
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 09:11:17AM +0100, Yadd wrote:
> > after few discussions with some devscripts maintainers, we decided to build
> > a new "version=5" format for debian/watch.
To be
Summary: unhide redirectors
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 09:11:17AM +0100, Yadd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after few discussions with some devscripts maintainers, we decided to build
> a new "version=5" format for debian/watch.
>
> Principles:
> * keep compatibility with versions 3 and 4, no need to change al
Hi,
after few discussions with some devscripts maintainers, we decided to
build a new "version=5" format for debian/watch.
Principles:
* keep compatibility with versions 3 and 4, no need to change all
debian/watch files
* new version 5 format using the same syntax than other debian/* file
43 matches
Mail list logo
