practices for porters (was Re: large number of source package ...)
Paul Slootman <paul@wau.mis.ah.nl> writes:
> On Thu 24 Sep 1998, James A. Treacy wrote:
> > > I believe part of the problem is from cross-platform uploads
> > > that include new source..
> > >
> > Probably. Since people are supposed to be able to get the source to
> > the version of the package in the archive, we need to fix this.
>
> The way I do uploads for Alpha where patches were necessary, is to only
> upload the binary, and to submit a patch to the BTS. This way
> (a) the package maintainer gets a chance to integrate the patch in the
> way he sees fit (e.g. maybe he can see a cleaner way of fixing something),
> (b) the source for the NMU binary can be reconstructed from the standard
> sources plus the patch from the bug report.
> I find this works very well. The only drawback is where the maintainer
> weeks if not months in integrating the patch.
Does this practice receive the official blessing of the archive
maintainers?
I'd like to add a section in the Developer's Reference talking about
procedures to be used by porters. Currently, the Developer's
Reference is probably x86-centric, a flaw which I would very much like
to correct. However, I only have x86 machines here and my experience
with the procedures used by porters is extremely, *ahem*, second hand.
So could someone who is an active porter get in touch with me. I'd
like them to take a look at the Developer's Reference, to identify the
procedural documentation which is missing or x86-centric, and to help
me document the "best practices" of porters. I believe this would
make easier for porters, for the archive maintainers, and for
non-porting package maintainers who should be working with porters.
Moreover, it should help Debian itself.
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: