Re: RFS: quickrdp
* Tobias Eliasson <arnestig@gmail.com>, 2012-01-21, 09:13:
Tsclient is not a requirement for QuickRDP 1.1, but launching RDP
connections won't work without it. If tsclient is being removed in a
near future
No, no. tsclient has been _already_ removed from unstable and testing
(which are the distributions we care as far as new packages are
concerned).
I guess QuickRDP has to rely on rdesktop or another RDP
frontend in a near future release. Will this affect this package
however?
This what _I_ wanted to ask. :)
Yes, unfortunately a lot of people are still stuck with devices and
hosts that only allow telnet :(.
And since telnet package is 'Priority: standard', I don't see any
reason not to change Recommends to Suggest.
There are multiple implementations of telnet in Debian. Does quickrdp
really need this particular one provided by the "telnet" binary package?
If not, then the recommendation/suggestion should be changed to
"telnet-client".
Same goes for perl-base, but that's just for perl script support in
QuickRDP. I guess Suggests will work here aswell.
Do I understand correctly that this feature allows users to run their
own Perl scripts? If this is the case, it should be probably "perl", not
"perl-base".
I don't understand why Lintian complains on
helper-template-in-copyright. I can't see that it's actually a
template anymore. Sure I used dh_make to create the template, but
I've changed all parts I should as far as I understand... (obviously
not though).
It doesn't like "Upstream Author(s)". Just remove the "(s)".
And why out-of-date-standards-version is 3.8.4 instead of 3.9.2 I
have no idea.
"Standards-Version: 3.8.4" is in debian/control, isn't it?
How would I proceed here? I have obviously changes to make and I am
upstream author. Since this ITP and RFS a new release of QuickRDP has
been launched with new bugfixes that goes under version name 1.1.1.
Since there already is a ITP bug filed should I just upload a new
package to mentors.debian.org with the new version name
Yes, please do.
even if ITP#655156 states that 1.1 is the package in focus?
Nobody cares about version numbers in the ITP bugs. :)
--
Jakub Wilk
Reply to: