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

maint-guide update (chapt 6-9, appendix)


I need critical review again.  New maint-guide should show up on the web
soon as the *11* January 2005 version at


I am thinking to upload around 23rd based on this version.

Joy or anyone, if you do not like any contents here, please tell me so.
I will accommodate your request.

See more below.

On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 11:37:58PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 10:20:42AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> wrote:
> > You can consider adding a link here that refers to the discussion of
> > orig.tar.gz files in the developer's reference, oh, no, it's not yet
> > there (see #278524). 
> That was the information I was looking for.  For maint-guide, repackage
> issues is best left as remote reference, I think.  Initially pointing
> this bug and later pointing Developer reference section.

I decided not to get into complicated issues in this maint-guide :-)
So I will simply wait for the Developer Reference update.

> > Maybe later. This would also provide an explanation
> > for the "Usually" at the beginning of the paragraph above, namely when
> > it should unpack into <packagename>-<upstream-version>.orig/.
> Yes.
> > > The dh_make command usually takes care creation of orig.tar.gz file. 
> > 
> > I would leave this out here, because we are in the section about
> > updating the package to a new version. 

I reorganized and added contents to Chapter 6 - 9 quite a bit.
I also added example as appendix.

These makes document longer: bad
More examples should ease the NM learning curve.: good.
Now there is no excuse not to use pbuilder: good
This should address most of the requests: good

Before correcting my English, please tell me if these additions /
changes / content selections / contents organization are OK.  If people
feel too redundant to have example, please tell me so I will remove it.

After we agree on general contents, I am sure my bad English needs



Reply to: