Re: Upstream maintainer adding debian/rules
Like I wrote in another posting, another person had already announced
he'd package DUMB for Debian. (I should have checked in the WNPP
first.) I don't know which one of us is going to be the Debian
maintainer, but in this reply I'll assume it'll be me, as he made the
announcement about half a year ago.
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@iki.fi> writes:
> Please, PLEASE, make the resulting .deb Policy conformant!
I'm trying hard :)
In fact, that's why I asked here in the first place.
> > I don't want to become an official Debian developer, at least not
> > yet. I'm too lazy for that
>
> Then you shouldn't make a package.
How come? I don't see how it would hurt anyone.
> And you get the benefits of the BTS `kaupan päälle'.
I'm not sure they are benefits. Should RPM DUMB users be reporting
the bugs to Debian? I doubt it.
> > and DUMB may still be too buggy to be included in a distribution.
>
> By all means, become a Debian developer, upload DUMB and file an
> Important bug for DUMB in the BTS detailing the release-critical
> problems you have. That way DUMB will not find itself in any frozen
> or stable release before you have closed the bug.
So you say I should make a detailed list of all the infinite bugs,
mail a copy of my driver's license to the US, and invent and remember
one or two new passwords? Uh-oh...
Is the GNU Privacy Guard already in usable condition? I don't want to
go back to PGP.
> > Is there some reason why I should move the Debian files to a separate
> > patch?
>
> Yes. You might want to keep your job as a upstream developer and the
> Debian packager separated.
If I do that, must all tar.gz files be in two versions (xxx and
xxx.orig)?
--
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <tosi@stekt.oulu.fi>, http://stekt.oulu.fi/~tosi/
Reply to: