DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
linux.debian.project only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

linux.debian.project Profile…
 Up
DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads         


Author: Bas Wijnen
Date: Apr 24, 2008 12:40

Hi,

We (Bas Wijnen, Lucas Nussbaum) worked on a Debian Enhancement
Proposal[0] on the policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads
(NMUs).

The main purpose of the proposal is:
* to explicitely allow fixing bugs of severity lower than important in
NMUs.
* to encourage the use of the DELAYED queue.
* to try to encourage a responsible approach for NMUs, instead of an
approach based on strict rules.

This DEP is available on the Debian Wiki[1].

When commenting on this DEP, please create sub-threads on debian-devel@
(changing the Subject) for each point you raise, and avoid discussing
several points in the same mail.

Have a nice flamewar^Wdiscussion!

Lucas Nussbaum and Bas Wijnen

[0] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep0/
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/NmuDep
Show full article (1.37Kb)
18 Comments
NMU versioning (was: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads)         


Author: James Vega
Date: Apr 25, 2008 06:50

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:42:59PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> This DEP is available on the Debian Wiki[1].

"The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX, where X is a
counter starting at 1."

The above was added to the DEP to "match dch" but dch only uses that format
for native NMUs as per the earlier discussion on -devel[0]. Is this an
intended change to usk +nmuX for all NMUs or should the wording be updated to
reflect current behavior?

--
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega debian.org>

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkgR30IACgkQDb3UpmEybUAXZACfZj3GH1c+QSpC4s34Dk/kUotE
3/IAniCepABXlaiHzBZLcqfXaZlkgT6i
=hsZ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
no comments
Re: NMU versioning (was: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads)         


Author: Raphael Hertzog
Date: Apr 25, 2008 07:20

(reply-to set to debian-devel only)

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, James Vega wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:42:59PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>> This DEP is available on the Debian Wiki[1].
>
> "The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX, where X is a
> counter starting at 1."
>
> The above was added to the DEP to "match dch" but dch only uses that format
> for native NMUs as per the earlier discussion on -devel[0]. Is this an
> intended change to usk +nmuX for all NMUs or should the wording be updated to
> reflect current behavior?

I want a consistent versioning scheme, thus +nmuX for both native and
non-natives packages.

Consider this a wishlist bug against devscripts. :-)

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Show full article (0.99Kb)
no comments
Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads         


Author: Holger Levsen
Date: Apr 25, 2008 09:00

Hi,

thanks for starting an initiative to make NMs more useful and accepted!
For now I just have two procedural remarks.

On Thursday 24 April 2008 21:42, Bas Wijnen wrote:

Why isnt the second URL http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep1/ ? :)

And secondly, if you had included the actual text in the mail, everybody could
reply with proper quoting and I could also read it now.

regards,
Holger

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

iD8DBQBIEZ16UHLQNqxYNSARAkpQAJ9TQIG5agDxy3vjYHUTww+bef47EQCg0XkO
G1YbKSRCRmmlsIctuasUnLE=
=y1mj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
no comments
Re: NMU versioning         


Author: Russ Allbery
Date: Apr 25, 2008 09:30

Raphael Hertzog debian.org> writes:
> I want a consistent versioning scheme, thus +nmuX for both native and
> non-natives packages.
>
> Consider this a wishlist bug against devscripts. :-)

And the Developer's Reference.

I do recommend actually filing said wishlist bugs, of course. :)

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
no comments
Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads         


Author: Kevin B. McCarty
Date: Apr 25, 2008 11:20

Bas Wijnen wrote:
> We (Bas Wijnen, Lucas Nussbaum) worked on a Debian Enhancement
> Proposal[0] on the policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads
> (NMUs).

Hi,

I made a very minor modification on the Wiki page [1] to *emphasize* the
fact that XY in +debXYuZ for a security upload for testing should have X
be the same as for stable, even if it is already known that testing will
become a new major release. Without the emphasis I could see people
glossing over this point.

I hope the change is OK; if not, of course feel free to revert it.

best regards,

--
Kevin B. McCarty gmail.com>
WWW: http://www.starplot.org/
WWW: http://people.debian.org/~kmccarty/
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751
Show full article (1.05Kb)
no comments
Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads         


Author: Lucas Nussbaum
Date: Apr 28, 2008 02:50

On 25/04/08 at 10:59 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for starting an initiative to make NMs more useful and accepted!
> For now I just have two procedural remarks.
>
> On Thursday 24 April 2008 21:42, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
> Why isnt the second URL http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep1/ ? :)

DEP0 doesn't force use to use dep.debian.net directly. We prefered to
work on the DEP using the wiki, and it's also easier to track changes.
It will be moved dep.debian.net once it's approved.
> And secondly, if you had included the actual text in the mail, everybody could
> reply with proper quoting and I could also read it now.
Show full article (1.27Kb)
no comments
Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads         


Author: Lucas Nussbaum
Date: Apr 28, 2008 02:50

On 25/04/08 at 11:15 -0700, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
>> We (Bas Wijnen, Lucas Nussbaum) worked on a Debian Enhancement
>> Proposal[0] on the policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads
>> (NMUs).
>
> Hi,
>
> I made a very minor modification on the Wiki page [1] to *emphasize* the
> fact that XY in +debXYuZ for a security upload for testing should have X
> be the same as for stable, even if it is already known that testing will
> become a new major release. Without the emphasis I could see people
> glossing over this point.
>
>
> I hope the change is OK; if not, of course feel free to revert it.
Show full article (1.09Kb)
no comments
Re: NMU versioning         


Author: Amaya
Date: Apr 29, 2008 02:40

James Vega wrote:
> "The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX, where
> X is a counter starting at 1."

I have found that NMUing native source packages is a bit tricky, as in,
what is the consensuous regarding this increment? Where to increment?

I hope I made myself understood, but I am at loss, not enough caffeine
in bloodstream.

--
·''`. Come, let me sing into your ear, those dancing days are gone
: :' : I carry the sun in a golden cup, the moon in a silver bag
`. `'
`- Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
no comments
Re: NMU versioning         


Author: Kartik Mistry
Date: Apr 29, 2008 03:00

On Tuesday 29 Apr 2008 3:02:34 pm Amaya wrote:
>> "The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX, where
>> X is a counter starting at 1."
>
> I have found that NMUing native source packages is a bit tricky, as in,
> what is the consensuous regarding this increment? Where to increment?

Hi,

someversion+nmu1, someversion+nmu2 for example see, bzflag package. It is
at 2.0.10.20071115+nmu1 right now.

--
Cheers,
Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_
Blogs: {ftbfs,kartikm}.wordpress.com

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

iD8DBQBIFvDXoRg/jtECjI0RArnUAKCXGtXzotkTbO/eaZmP9WjuehWiPwCeKPWt
TuSaG3SfzfHlSj5LTlndF9k=
=EDc2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
no comments
1 2