Home / Browse / LXDE - Lightweight X Desktop Environment / Mail / Archive

LXDE - Lightweight X Desktop Environment

Email Archive: lxde-list (read-only)

Re: [Lxde-list] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: Julien Lavergne <gilir@ub...> - 2012-06-04 08:06

Le 3 juin 2012 à 18:45, Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@...> a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> while updating menu-cache to 0.3.3 on Fedora and had a look at the
> changes at http://blog.lxde.org/?p=925 and thought: "WTF?!" Half of the
> changes only affects Debian packaging. IHMO this shouldn't even be in
> our git.
> 
> Please let me explain: Development happens upstream, packaging is a
> downstream effort. We need to separate generic source code from
> distribution specific packaging. There is no use in having distribution
> specific information like changelogs in our upstream source code
> repositories. Our tarballs should be distribution-agnostic.
> 
> If we really want to have this *packaging* information in our *source*
> code repository, the 'debian' folder should be renamed to somethign like
> 'debian-unofficial' because otherwiese it will clash with the real
> 'debian' directory created by packaging.

I updated the Debian directory on the git for 2 main reasons :
- easily add daily builds of packages from git (using by Ubuntu and Opensuse currently)
- add the ability for everyone to build packages locally from git.

Of course, the Debian directory is excluded of the source tarball, if it is generated with "make dist".

The directories was already there, before I started to use LXDE. IMO, it should not be a problem as long as it's not shipped in the source tarball, but I understand it could be a source of discussion.

Let's other people express their feelings about this. If the folders need to be removed, I just need to update my daily builds.

Regards,
Julien Lavergne

Thread View

Thread	Author	Date
[Lxde-list] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?	Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@go...>

Re: [Lxde-list] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@pr...> - 2012-06-03 16:54

debian packaging should *not* be in the upstream branches, please remove
it completely, period.

we have the debian packaging on git.lxde.org (at some point it would
make sense to merge the different branches into one repository, but
again, the debian packaging shall not be in the upstream branches, we
have debian-* branches for that, see git.lxde.org).

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@...
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

Re: [Lxde-list] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@go...> - 2012-06-03 17:10

Am Sonntag, den 03.06.2012, 18:54 +0200 schrieb Daniel Baumann:
> debian packaging should *not* be in the upstream branches, please remove
> it completely, period.

+1

> we have the debian packaging on git.lxde.org (at some point it would
> make sense to merge the different branches into one repository, but
> again, the debian packaging shall not be in the upstream branches, we
> have debian-* branches for that, see git.lxde.org).

Are you sure you mean git.lxde.org? There is no such host and on
lxde.git.sourceforge.net there are no debian packaging branches.

If we really need/want to have the Debian packaging stuff in our git, I
suggest to go for version specific 'debian-' branches. They could be
used to build of them with git-buildpackage, track them remotely and
sync from/to them from the real Debian packaging git. And most important
we would not distribute the 'debian' folder in our source tarballs.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Debian/Ubuntu packager and I don't know what these
projects require from us. If having this packaging information helps
them, sure, let's talk about it.  But I do a lot of Debian packaging in
my dayjob and know that the current setup is really bad.

Kind regards,
Christoph

Re: [Lxde-list] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@pr...> - 2012-06-03 18:58

On 06/03/2012 07:10 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Are you sure you mean git.lxde.org?

yes.

> There is no such host and on
> lxde.git.sourceforge.net there are no debian packaging branches.

try http://git.lxde.org/ ?

> If we really need/want to have the Debian packaging stuff in our git, I
> suggest to go for version specific 'debian-' branches.

like i said.. see http://git.lxde.org/

> Disclaimer: I'm not a Debian/Ubuntu packager and I don't know what these
> projects require from us.

I am a Debian Developer and one of the Maintainer of the lxde packages
in debian; and I've already said everything in my last mail, so i'm not
going to repeat even more of it ;)

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@...
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

Re: [Lxde-list] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@go...> - 2012-06-03 20:01

Am Sonntag, den 03.06.2012, 20:58 +0200 schrieb Daniel Baumann:
> On 06/03/2012 07:10 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > Are you sure you mean git.lxde.org?
> 
> yes.

Weird, I got a "host not found".

> > There is no such host and on
> > lxde.git.sourceforge.net there are no debian packaging branches.
> 
> try http://git.lxde.org/ ?

Who runs this server? Where is it hosted? Who set it up? When was this
ever discussed on this list?

I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but frankly speaking I find this
just as wrong as having 'debian' in git and shipping it in the tarballs.
If anything, git.lxde.org should be the authoritative source for the
upstream code and not anything that is only used by a single
distribution.

Of course we could add ubuntu/lxde-common.git, fedora/lxde-common.git
and whatnot, but as packaging is similar for many distributions, I would
prefer one packaging repo for each component and then use branches for
the distributions. This allows easy merging and tracking. If we used the
same repo as the sourcecode itself, we could even use tools
git-buildpackage to build directly from git (for nightlies etc).

Kind regards,
Christoph

Re: [Lxde-list] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@pr...> - 2012-06-03 20:21

On 06/03/2012 10:01 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Who runs this server?

me.

> Where is it hosted?

on a root server at hetzner.

> Who set it up?

me.

> When was this ever discussed on this list?

have a look at the mailinglist archive, there were a few mails about it.

> I find this just as wrong as having 'debian' in git and shipping it in the tarballs.

eh? are you not reading my mail!? i told you *twice* that the debian
packaging should be removed from the upstream branch.

> If anything, git.lxde.org should be the authoritative source for the
> upstream code and not anything that is only used by a single
> distribution.

read my mail again. *carefully*.

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@...
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

Re: [Lxde-list] Downstream packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@go...> - 2012-06-03 21:46

Am Sonntag, den 03.06.2012, 22:21 +0200 schrieb Daniel Baumann:
> On 06/03/2012 10:01 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > Who runs this server?
> 
> me.
> 
> > Where is it hosted?
> 
> on a root server at hetzner.
> 
> > Who set it up?
> 
> me.

Hi Daniel,

thanks for providing these details.

> > When was this ever discussed on this list?
> 
> have a look at the mailinglist archive, there were a few mails about it.

A full text search for "git.lxde.org" only reveals a single message
titled "Releases missing" sent on May 11th. It doesn't really say: "Hey,
I'm going to (ab)use the URL git.lxde.org for Debian packaging".

Would you please be so kind as to point me to the relevant mails?

> > I find this just as wrong as having 'debian' in git and shipping it in the tarballs.
> 
> eh? are you not reading my mail!? i told you *twice* that the debian
> packaging should be removed from the upstream branch.

Sure, I got that already and I told you that I agree. If I say "just as
wrong" it means that *both* is wrong, shipping packaging info in the
tarballs and using the URL git.lxde.org for packaging only.

Sorry for nitpicking, but there is no such thing as "the upstream
branch". There is a upstream repo and a master branch.

> > If anything, git.lxde.org should be the authoritative source for the
> > upstream code and not anything that is only used by a single
> > distribution.
> 
> read my mail again. *carefully*.

Just as you never mentioned you want to use git.lxde.org for Debian
packaging repositories, you did not mention upstream in this
conversation. So please allow me the question: What are your plans with
git.lxde.org?

Kind regards,
Christoph

Re: [Lxde-list] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: Julien Lavergne <gilir@ub...> - 2012-06-04 08:06

Le 3 juin 2012 à 18:45, Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@...> a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> while updating menu-cache to 0.3.3 on Fedora and had a look at the
> changes at http://blog.lxde.org/?p=925 and thought: "WTF?!" Half of the
> changes only affects Debian packaging. IHMO this shouldn't even be in
> our git.
> 
> Please let me explain: Development happens upstream, packaging is a
> downstream effort. We need to separate generic source code from
> distribution specific packaging. There is no use in having distribution
> specific information like changelogs in our upstream source code
> repositories. Our tarballs should be distribution-agnostic.
> 
> If we really want to have this *packaging* information in our *source*
> code repository, the 'debian' folder should be renamed to somethign like
> 'debian-unofficial' because otherwiese it will clash with the real
> 'debian' directory created by packaging.

I updated the Debian directory on the git for 2 main reasons :
- easily add daily builds of packages from git (using by Ubuntu and Opensuse currently)
- add the ability for everyone to build packages locally from git.

Of course, the Debian directory is excluded of the source tarball, if it is generated with "make dist".

The directories was already there, before I started to use LXDE. IMO, it should not be a problem as long as it's not shipped in the source tarball, but I understand it could be a source of discussion.

Let's other people express their feelings about this. If the folders need to be removed, I just need to update my daily builds.

Regards,
Julien Lavergne

[Lxde-list] git.lxde.org (was: Re: Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?)

From: Martin Bagge / brother <brother@bs...> - 2012-06-04 09:01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2012-06-03 22:01, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> If anything, git.lxde.org should be the authoritative source for the 
> upstream code and not anything that is only used by a single 
> distribution.

Let's pop open this beehive.

Sourceforge. I am not doing that much with it anymore, uploading files
after releases (after pcman elevated my privs to admin when the file
uploads was denied...).
But in general I find SF.net painful to use. Am I the only one?
Maybe we should consider to move all upstream stuff to something else in
a distant fututre. Tracker and all. And the sources to git.lxde.org if
Daniel would allow it =)

Just thinking out loud.

- -- 
brother
http://sis.bthstudent.se
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJPzHl3AAoJEJbdSEaj0jV7bk8IAJZvGBLAiPHo9LXcxbVoi/4T
1cvCBDxuaULsTbbXHdmBiUHUKSiW5O5XPT0qzwE23kolHknuEeZMwZok/V68+EPS
gEUK0unEn8lYT/qNiapoPOVtQIpO3cuuuIU06SgFqa6lEgdSsOj9s/pWh9qhEeHR
lnuiSTbVlXfhI92S98++bK83ikq1g/JbNYUXfqkz93ZLBrppZALi6pj49asAO2mV
n+sEatm/1PrbagJYfzug54JKRkE+zbjHMW9jpfgWrscrPQsXYAXGCQ6Ghv5uWpdt
GdQSs6gucubnTgiZCEnquFu1Rr3Os/0TG1NlDhNng0gS13TPxGUykk3zUT2bWFI=
=dOHf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Lxde-list] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: Martin Bagge / brother <brother@bs...> - 2012-06-04 09:06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2012-06-03 18:45, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> while updating menu-cache to 0.3.3 on Fedora and had a look at the 
> changes at http://blog.lxde.org/?p=925 and thought: "WTF?!" Half of
> the changes only affects Debian packaging. IHMO this shouldn't even
> be in our git.
> 
> Please let me explain: Development happens upstream, packaging is a 
> downstream effort. We need to separate generic source code from 
> distribution specific packaging. There is no use in having
> distribution specific information like changelogs in our upstream
> source code repositories. Our tarballs should be
> distribution-agnostic.

Just stating the obvious (as I did already at IRC yesterday).

I don't care much for distro specific things in the upstream repo. I
don't do packages so I don't have to work with the fact that it is there
but if it hinders the workflow for someone I would rather remove these
things.
It's something for the package guys to decide in on my opinion. Branches
or what ever. Be my guest.
The cooperation between distros we have seen earlier is something I
really like and I hope we will see those things in the future also.


(Yes I am on the Debian/Ubuntu camp usually but this is 100% upstream
view, I don't do anything with packages for neither Debian nor Ubuntu.)
- -- 
brother
http://sis.bthstudent.se
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJPzHqXAAoJEJbdSEaj0jV7ZZEH/jpPn13FOCDshGc0bqakep4U
0KIi8MBOSjU07UUVkxyYowG/mJCYmrWrQN5Wth6Xzd9WFcWCYaWqHEX0aIenEiY+
qIQN0SG3y0towmJxLAzUUDzKeafOqkuqYj2WXSmEj5XyN/5FmBH1ieWzMQw/3rk7
Qh9uHN5a9cV76UNmo+ZZQssFPDWc9G+dwBX4AFIch9SGSJfswmGo9lXBelszBaue
RmLdwnh3m9Saz3AbLGguCo63j8vgyL77RHDyJ2jRXqkpLZaS6zbSYj3sPfBAWxLT
dHIgkXmKf3Qmwc8VqVKoiK0PMCD3DZMqzpq1367lp7sJPiu4lgIZUFSpgnP7Hcc=
=qscH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Lxde-list] git.lxde.org (was: Re: Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?)

From: Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@go...> - 2012-06-04 10:03

Am Montag, den 04.06.2012, 11:01 +0200 schrieb Martin Bagge / brother:
> On 2012-06-03 22:01, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > If anything, git.lxde.org should be the authoritative source for the 
> > upstream code and not anything that is only used by a single 
> > distribution.
> 
> Let's pop open this beehive.
> 
> Sourceforge. I am not doing that much with it anymore, uploading files
> after releases (after pcman elevated my privs to admin when the file
> uploads was denied...).
> But in general I find SF.net painful to use. Am I the only one?

No. Especially the bug tracker is PITA.

> Maybe we should consider to move all upstream stuff to something else in
> a distant fututre. Tracker and all. And the sources to git.lxde.org if
> Daniel would allow it =)

Either this or github. gitbut allows easy "forking" and merging changes
back and we do not rely on a single person or server.

Kind regards,
Christoph

Re: [Lxde-list] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: Andrej N. Gritsenko <andrej@re...> - 2012-06-04 10:28

Hello!

Julien Lavergne has written on Monday,  4 June, at 10:05:
>I updated the Debian directory on the git for 2 main reasons :
>- easily add daily builds of packages from git (using by Ubuntu and Opensuse currently)
>- add the ability for everyone to build packages locally from git.

>Of course, the Debian directory is excluded of the source tarball, if it is generated with "make dist".

>The directories was already there, before I started to use LXDE. IMO, it should not be a problem as long as it's not shipped in the source tarball, but I understand it could be a source of discussion.

>Let's other people express their feelings about this. If the folders need to be removed, I just need to update my daily builds.

    You have my vote for it, that way anyone else with Git access could
add fixes to packaging. At least there are two major packaging tools for
Linux: dpkg and rpm. So why don't have building files for those in the
Git repository as soon it doesn't go into source tarball anyway?

    With best wishes.
    Andriy.

Re: [Lxde-list] git.lxde.org (was: Re: Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?)

From: Andrej N. Gritsenko <andrej@re...> - 2012-06-04 11:28

Hello!

Christoph Wickert has written on Monday,  4 June, at 12:02:
>Am Montag, den 04.06.2012, 11:01 +0200 schrieb Martin Bagge / brother:
>> On 2012-06-03 22:01, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> > If anything, git.lxde.org should be the authoritative source for the 
>> > upstream code and not anything that is only used by a single 
>> > distribution.
>> Let's pop open this beehive.
>> Sourceforge. I am not doing that much with it anymore, uploading files
>> after releases (after pcman elevated my privs to admin when the file
>> uploads was denied...).
>> But in general I find SF.net painful to use. Am I the only one?

>No. Especially the bug tracker is PITA.

The bug tracker at SF has two _big_ advantages:
1) it's on the same site with the Git browser;
2) it's simple so easy to use for users.

    And since we don't have army of testers who are very advanced in
knowledge of more powerful trackers last one is an issue. Remember that
bug tracker is filled by simple users not by developers. We can have
another tracker for developers too, of course, but constant copying
all tickets from one tracker to another would be more PITA than it is
currently. ;)

    Andriy.

Re: [Lxde-list] git.lxde.org

From: Stephan Sokolow <gmane.ssokolow@sp...> - 2012-06-04 12:35

Sounds like my usual arguments for switching things TO GitHub.

Simple, integrated bug tracker that your average end user can easily use.

On 12-06-04 07:27 AM, Andrej N. Gritsenko wrote:
>      Hello!
>
> Christoph Wickert has written on Monday,  4 June, at 12:02:
>> Am Montag, den 04.06.2012, 11:01 +0200 schrieb Martin Bagge / brother:
>>> On 2012-06-03 22:01, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>>> If anything, git.lxde.org should be the authoritative source for the
>>>> upstream code and not anything that is only used by a single
>>>> distribution.
>>> Let's pop open this beehive.
>>> Sourceforge. I am not doing that much with it anymore, uploading files
>>> after releases (after pcman elevated my privs to admin when the file
>>> uploads was denied...).
>>> But in general I find SF.net painful to use. Am I the only one?
>
>> No. Especially the bug tracker is PITA.
>
> The bug tracker at SF has two _big_ advantages:
> 1) it's on the same site with the Git browser;
> 2) it's simple so easy to use for users.
>
>      And since we don't have army of testers who are very advanced in
> knowledge of more powerful trackers last one is an issue. Remember that
> bug tracker is filled by simple users not by developers. We can have
> another tracker for developers too, of course, but constant copying
> all tickets from one tracker to another would be more PITA than it is
> currently. ;)
>
>      Andriy.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/

Re: [Lxde-list] git.lxde.org

From: Andrej N. Gritsenko <andrej@re...> - 2012-06-04 14:00

Hello!

Stephan Sokolow has written on Monday,  4 June, at  8:34:
>Sounds like my usual arguments for switching things TO GitHub.

>Simple, integrated bug tracker that your average end user can easily use.

    I personally highly dislike GitHub - it's too overloaded with images
and menus and lacks simplicity of gitweb interface (which SF git viewer
resembles BTW). And their tracker also lacks any powerful search engine
(which both SF tracker and Bugzilla have). So I'm against GitHub counting
it less convenient than SF.

    Andriy.

Re: [Lxde-list] [Pcmanfm-develop] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: PCMan <pcman.tw@gm...> - 2012-06-04 14:54

It's nice to have rpm and debian files for everyone as these are the
most frequently used package formats.
However, there are too many differences among distros which use them.
Fedora, Mandriva, and SuSE all use rpm, but the rpm definition files
written for one do not work for others.
The debian/control file written for debian does not work for ubuntu, either.
So, my vote is for removal of them from git repo.
These files exist in the repo because of some historical reasons.
Now there is no need to put them in the repo so let's remove them.

Cheers

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Andrej N. Gritsenko <andrej@...> wrote:
>    Hello!
>
> Julien Lavergne has written on Monday,  4 June, at 10:05:
>>I updated the Debian directory on the git for 2 main reasons :
>>- easily add daily builds of packages from git (using by Ubuntu and Opensuse currently)
>>- add the ability for everyone to build packages locally from git.
>
>>Of course, the Debian directory is excluded of the source tarball, if it is generated with "make dist".
>
>>The directories was already there, before I started to use LXDE. IMO, it should not be a problem as long as it's not shipped in the source tarball, but I understand it could be a source of discussion.
>
>>Let's other people express their feelings about this. If the folders need to be removed, I just need to update my daily builds.
>
>    You have my vote for it, that way anyone else with Git access could
> add fixes to packaging. At least there are two major packaging tools for
> Linux: dpkg and rpm. So why don't have building files for those in the
> Git repository as soon it doesn't go into source tarball anyway?
>
>    With best wishes.
>    Andriy.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Pcmanfm-develop mailing list
> Pcmanfm-develop@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pcmanfm-develop

Re: [Lxde-list] bug tracker (was git.lxde.org ...)

From: Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@go...> - 2012-06-04 19:04

Am Montag, den 04.06.2012, 14:27 +0300 schrieb Andrej N. Gritsenko:

> The bug tracker at SF has two _big_ advantages:
> 1) it's on the same site with the Git browser;

I'm not sure if this add much value.

> 2) it's simple so easy to use for users.

Sorry, but it's definitely not:
People hardly ever choose a category, this means we don't know what
component is affected.
Because the category is not mandatory we don't have automatic
notifications. Somebody needs to look over the bugs and assign them to
the right components and persons.
We cannot add custom fields e.g. for the version. We still have the
unused "Group" field but every value we enter there is valid for all
categories.
We have 3 trackers: bugs, patches and feature requests. This is
confusing.
Groups and categories are different in all three, this means we cannot
move bugs from one tracker to the other.
We have the same with the pcmanfm bug tracker, which multiplies the work
by factor 2. It's also very disappointing if people have to wait for
weeks just to receive a message that tells them to file the bug again in
another tracker.

>     And since we don't have army of testers who are very advanced in
> knowledge of more powerful trackers last one is an issue.

I agree that something like bugzilla is too powerful and confusing for
most people, but the tracker of trac or the one at github for example
are pretty straight forward.

Kind regards,
Christoph

Re: [Lxde-list] git.lxde.org

From: Julien Lavergne <gilir@ub...> - 2012-06-04 19:49

Le 06/04/2012 11:01 AM, Martin Bagge / brother a écrit :
> But in general I find SF.net painful to use. Am I the only one?
Oh no. I'm not a fan of it at all ...

Regards,
Julien Lavergne

Re: [Lxde-list] [Pcmanfm-develop] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: Julien Lavergne <gilir@ub...> - 2012-06-04 19:53

Le 06/04/2012 04:54 PM, PCMan a écrit :
> The debian/control file written for debian does not work for ubuntu, either.
That's not true, current debian/control are all from Debian, and work
perfectly on Ubuntu daily builds. And it should work on any Debian-based
distribution, unless they do some crasy choices, or are not up-to-date
enough.

Regards,
Julien Lavergne

Re: [Lxde-list] [Pcmanfm-develop] Downstrea packaging efforts in upstream git?

From: PCMan <pcman.tw@gm...> - 2012-06-05 11:53

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Julien Lavergne <gilir@...> wrote:
> Le 06/04/2012 04:54 PM, PCMan a écrit :
>> The debian/control file written for debian does not work for ubuntu, either.
> That's not true, current debian/control are all from Debian, and work
This is 99% true. IIRC, when package names and library version numbers
are different,
it's possible that the debian/control files cannot be used in derived distros.
This is a rare case, though.
> perfectly on Ubuntu daily builds. And it should work on any Debian-based
> distribution, unless they do some crasy choices, or are not up-to-date
> enough.
>
> Regards,
> Julien Lavergne
>

Re: [Lxde-list] bug tracker (was git.lxde.org ...)

From: Henry Gebhardt <hsggebhardt@go...> - 2012-06-10 08:20

On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 09:04:26PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Montag, den 04.06.2012, 14:27 +0300 schrieb Andrej N. Gritsenko:
> > 2) it's simple so easy to use for users.
> 
> Sorry, but it's definitely not:
...

I have experienced the following two problems with the SF bug tracker:

    a. When someone files a bug, and you reply, they don't automatically
       get an email notification. This was mentioned in the last month
       or so by two different people, in [1] and [2].

    b. I can't figure out how to attach a patch to a bug report [2].
       This is probably just my stupidity.

Maybe these can be resolved within the SF tracker?

Thanks,
Henry


[1] https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=894871&aid=3525879&group_id=180858
[2] https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=894869&aid=3527777&group_id=180858