Re: discover Debian package maintainer
Am Mit, den 21.01.2004 schrieb Branden Robinson um 16:17:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:48:50PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > The purpose of this mail is to inform discover-workers of the plans the
> > debian-installer team has for discover2 and to give you the possibility
> > to object to out plans.
>
> Okay.
>
> > Current state of discover2 in Debian: I have packaged an udeb only
> > version of discover2 which is in the archive now. This package has
> > successfully built on all autobuilders except mips, mipsel and m68k.
> > It is intended for testing discover2 with the new installer.
>
> Glad to hear it. Be sure and lean on those m* guys. :)
>
> > Further plans:
> > I discussed the future of the discover2 package with pere yesterday. We
> > plan to upload a full version of discover2 (including deb packages). It
> > is not our intent to hijack your package. However, considering that
> > there was no packaging effort done in the last months, we are under the
> > impression, that you are no longer interested in maintaining this
> > package. So we would like to completely takeover the maintenance of
> > discover2.
> > If our impression is wrong and you are still interested in maintaining
> > discover2 then please speak up now and provide finished packages in the
> > near future.
>
> It is not true that we are no longer interested; however, it is the case
> that at present Progeny has more urgent priorities occupying its
> technical staff. You might have noticed that LinuxWorld is this week.
> :)
>
> Also, I should let you know that I'm no longer the primary POC for
> Discover; this responsibility has been transferred to Jeff Licquia
> <licquia@progeny.com>. Nevertheless I remain very interested in the
> project, as I've been involved from the beginning.
I did not know whom to personally contact. So I decided to send this
mail to debian-packages@p.o and discover-workers@p.o in the hope that
the relevant people at progeny receive it.
>
> > If we take over the maintenance of discover2 we plan to do the following
> > (IRC excerpt):
> > 17:25 < pere> Currently, we have two packages: discover (building
> > discover and discover-udeb), and discover2 (building
> > discover2-udeb). If we change this to discover1 (building
> > discover1 and discover-udeb), and discover (building discover
> > and discover2-udeb).
> > 17:26 < pere> then we can test discover (version 2) in Sid, while
> > still using discover-udeb (version 1) in d-i.
> > 17:29 < pere> Besides, the discover version 2 package is slightly
> > tested already, and seem to return correct info.
> >
> > With this plan we can get wider testing for discover2 in sid and still
> > have discover1 packages as a fall back option and for sarge if it will
> > be released before discover2 is ready.
>
> Would it bother you guys terribly to do this as a pre-approved NMU? We
> can merge the changes back into our SVN repo.
I would be glad if this is merged back to your SVN repo. Is it possible
to arrange write access to it or do you want to merge the changes back
yourself?
The sources should always be available in the Debian archive, but we can
provide patches if you like.
>
> Once LinuxWorld is off our plate, let's see if we can't keep pace with
> your needs vis a vis Discover 2, and re-evaluate the maintainership
> issue in 4 weeks or so.
>
> Does that sound reasonable? Your plan sounds good to me, and like what
> was already discussed, so it doesn't sound very disruptive to previous
> expectations.
Yes this is OK and reasonable. I just wanted to make sure that this
upload is approved by progeny. I have put debian-boot@d.o in the
maintainer field of the udeb-only upload. Should this stay as it is atm
or should I put debian-packages@p.o there?
And one last question: To make the package build on non-i386 archs I had
to copy the kernel pcmcia headers into the package source. I have done
this in a sperate directory for now, but the most clean solution seem to
me to have them in the same directory as the discover pcmcia stuff as
normal non-system headers. Would you accept a patch for that?
Gaudenz
Reply to: