[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <tosi@stekt.oulu.fi>, http://stekt.oulu.fi/~tosi/

Reply to: