linux.debian.devel
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
linux.debian.devel only
 
Advanced search
May 2008
motuwethfrsasuw
   1234 18
567891011 19
12131415161718 20
19202122232425 21
262728293031  22
2008
 Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr 
 May   Jun   Jul   Aug 
 Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec 
2008 2007 2006  
total
linux.debian.devel Profile…
RELATED GROUPS

POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
  divergence from upstream as a bug         


Author: Joey Hess
Date: May 17, 2008 14:10

What if we just decide that changes made to upstream sources[1] qualify
as a bug? A change might be a bug in upstream, or in the debianisation,
or in Debian for requiring the change. But just call it a bug.
Everything else follows from that quite naturally..

The bug can be tracked, with a patch, in our BTS. The bug can be
forwarded upstream as the patch is sent upstream. A tag "divergence" can
be used to query for all such bugs, or to sort such bugs out of the way.

Other tags and BTS data can be used if desired. For example, "divergence
fixed-upstream", "divergence wontfix", "divergence help". Versioning
information can be used to track when an upstream version resolves the
divergence. Discussion and updated patches can be CCed to the bug log.

The BTS could be enhanced to allow opening a bug and forwarding it
upstream in a single message. (IIRC currently, it takes two). This would
allow a very simple workflow where a DD makes a change to a package,
generates a patch, and sends it upstream while also recording the
divergence in the BTS.
Show full article (3.36Kb)
160 Comments
  Re: divergence from upstream as a bug         


Author: Pierre Habouzit
Date: May 17, 2008 14:10

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 09:01:08PM +0000, Joey Hess wrote:
> What if we just decide that changes made to upstream sources[1] qualify
> as a bug?

WTF ? What's the point of free software if we invent rules for not
modifying them ? And well, we're in a bad posture then, because glibc
without patches can't work. Striving for minimal differences is good,
but deciding a change is a bug ? please…

--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBIL0k2vGr7W6HudhwRAmLgAJ9qVuzzooWfRuHk3l7MNrhjVD83ZACgpA//
4BYrxIAjuqiUJ8zKsIwBH1s=
=tobV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
34 Comments
  xkcd         


Author: A Mennucc
Date: May 17, 2008 12:10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

we had to have this

http://xkcd.com/424/

a.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFILybU9B/tjjP8QKQRAr5xAJ4gI/2k/LQqlsVKWXtCW0Nsli0RPgCfTSMH
fCHEC7M6erNUsmN0d+zUADQ=
=pIM0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
no comments
  Bug#481616: ITP: mumudvb -- Multicast a DVB transponder over multiple IP addresses         


Author: Stephane Glondu
Date: May 17, 2008 05:10

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Stephane Glondu glondu.net>

* Package name : mumudvb
Version : 1.2.5
Upstream Author : Brice Dubost braice.net>
* URL : http://mumudvb.braice.net
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : Multicast a DVB transponder over multiple IP addresses

Mumudvb is a program who can redistribute stream from DVB on a
network, in multicast. It's main feature is to take a whole
transponder and put each channel on a different multicast IP.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Show full article (1.01Kb)
no comments
  Re: RFS: figtoipe         


Author: Vincent Bernat
Date: May 17, 2008 02:40

OoO En cette fin de matinée radieuse du samedi 17 mai 2008, vers 11:17,
Alexander Bürger googlemail.com> disait:
>> When using Conflicts and having files in common with the other package,
>> you need Replaces as well. Otherwise, during upgrade, the user may see
>> error messages about your package trying to erase files owned by the
>> other (not yet removed) package.
> So what do you think about section 7.5 in the policy manual? As I said,
> to me it is confusing. It does not explicitly say that Replaces: must
> come together with Conflicts:, it sounds more like there are different
> meanings if it is alone (replace only some files) or with Conflicts:
> (replace whole package).

Hi Alexander!

[This message is about using Replaces without Conflicts]

I am not sure either. As you noted, the policy does not say to not use
it alone, but this just seems odd to me. Let's hope that someone else
will enlighten us on this matter.
Show full article (1.58Kb)
9 Comments