* Tim Goodaire (tgoodaire@linux.ca) wrote: > I haven't been able to find an ITP for this. I've found an RFP for it > though (278810). Is this what you're referring to? Yes. > Also, my ITP bug (305287) has already been closed on me. Apparently I Yes, I closed it since it was a duplicate WNPP bug. > was supposed to change the title of the RFP bug to ITP, but I've been > unable to find anything in the Debian maintainer's documentation that > would indicate that this is what you're supposed to do. Is this just > common practice or something? This is my first attempt at packaging > something for Debian. The developer's reference (http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-newpackage) would lead you to http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ which outlines how to use WNPP, specifically under "Removing entries" there's: RFP If you are going to package this, retitle the bug report to replace .RFP. with .ITP., in order for other people to know the program is already being packaged, and set yourself as the owner of the bug. Then package the software, upload it and close this bug once the package has been installed. Of course, it'd be good to *read* the RFP bug before retitling it, etc, which would have provided you with the information I wrote about in my prior email- specifically that there's a number of other people working on slony packaging already and there's specific and good reasons why it hasn't already been uploaded to the archive. I don't particularly care who ends up maintaining the package but it's more than a little annoying to have someone not read the documentation, prior bug reports, or apparently even look for prior bugs and then be bitched out by what I'm guessing was your boss on IRC for pointing out to you the existing bug report and why it hadn't been uploaded yet. As an additional tidbit- it'd probably be best to wait till the 8.0 debs are in Debian before putting the slony packages in to avoid what will probably be a great deal of ugliness in the transistion from one packaging methodology to another in the main Postgres packaging. The 8.0 debs are already in experimental, they're mainly waiting for sarge to be released before going into sid because of the libpq SONAME bump. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature