Re: Intent to create: QtEZ
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 22:05:15 -0700, erik wrote:
> I have a couple of puzzles too: I am not sure if QtEZ fits the DFSG or
> not. It is licensed under the QPL and I know that there is some
> controversy over this license, but it is _not_ part of KDE.
The QPL under which Qt2 is released is a DFSG-free license. (The KDE issue
is about interaction between the QPL and the GPL.)
> * how ( or even whether ) to become a debian developer;
This is detailed on http://www.debian.org/devel/
> & do I need to do this just to submit a new package?
If you want to see your package on ftp.debian.org and mirrors, yes. If you
don't, just find a piece of {web,ftp}space and make it available.
> * the mailing list thing: I have an internet email account and it tends
> to spazz out if I subscribe to a high volume list - any way around this?
Find a better account, find a mail<->news gateway, use the list archives on
the web, ...
> * QtEZ has one binary but also some shared libraries and a place for
> tutorials, data, and plugins ( which I have tentatively in /usr/lib and
> /usr/lib/qtez respectively ) - this works as a "single binary" for dpkg -b
> but I don't know if it fits protocol or tradition.
Tutorials ought to be under /usr/share/doc/<packagename>/ . If the libraries
are intended to be used by other code, put them in separate packages (and
separate them into run-time and devel ones).
> * I only have x86 machines to work on - is it ok to release for just
> one arch?
Yes. We have active porters who use autobuild systems to produce .debs for
other architectures.
> * the PGP/GPG thing: it seems to me that PGP ( which, duhh, I
> don't even know how to use... ) is overkill for non-security related apps.
It is the only reliable way for us to ensure that a package actually
originates where it is claimed to originate. It is necessary.
HTH,
Ray
--
POPULATION EXPLOSION Unique in human experience, an event which happened
yesterday but which everyone swears won't happen until tomorrow.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Reply to: