Re: RFS: nd (updated package)
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:19:44PM +0100, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
> fredag den 11 december 2009 klockan 00:28 skrev Tim Retout detta:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 01:35:33PM +0100, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
> > > I have follow almost all your advice. The revised package is
> > > still in the same spot with the same name. Thank you!
> >
> > Heh. Next time follow *all* the advice. :)
> >
>
> I did not expect it to be accepted right away, in particular due
> to the bug remark I inserted.
I took the view that this version was fixing a bug, and is an
incremental improvement over the existing version in Debian. Any
remaining faults should be fixable by further uploads. It's more
important that the package has an active maintainer than that it is
perfect.
One way of indicating that a package is not yet intended for release
is to use 'UNRELEASED' rather than 'unstable' in the first changelog
line. debchange (dch) has some support for this - use
'DEBCHANGE_RELEASE_HEURISTIC=changelog' in ~/.devscripts.
> > I don't think the README.Debian adds much to the package - discussion
> > of bugs should be made on the bug tracking system. You should file
> > another bug against the package detailing the segmentation fault that
> > can still happen, and then try to fix it.
>
> I discovered this segmentation fault four days ago, and suddenly
> your message of sponsoring this package came quite unexpectedly.
> I had honestly begun wondering wether to withdraw the package due
> to this segfault.
It's just a bug, and I don't believe it was introduced by any the cast
fixes.
Is it the same as #366914? (It might be related - 403 vs. 404
errors.) If you need help debugging it with gdb, I could lend a hand.
> > The debian/copyright file could be cleaned up, but it seems to be
> > accurate enough.
> >
> > I disagree with some of the changes made to the description in
> > debian/control, and think it still needs improving - there's a mailing
> > list to help with writing English descriptions... erm... go find
> > it. :)
>
> Both these are from at least 2003, I have never bothered.
> Right, I did insert ", and" as well as change a comma to a colon!
>
> Honestly, I am somewhat lost as to the agility a new package
> maintainer should display in rewriting documentation that
> a previous maintainer has compiled. Am I at liberty to modify
> the texts according to my own taste, or am I to preserve as
> much as possible of the previous text?
You are free to change whatever you want - obviously it's better if
the changes make improvements. :)
--
Tim Retout <tim@retout.co.uk>
Reply to: