Re: OTB

[Rashad Kanavath <mohammedrashadkm@gmail.com>]

Hello Bas,

Thanks a lot for sponsoring OTB package!. I had comment on bug tracker [1] which says splitting of shared libraries is not good for OTB. In OTB the version of all .so from source package changes altogether and it should be put in a single package.

Should I go back to single libotb  and libotb-dev ?

I thought it might be easier for other projects to have separated packages. But comments from [1]  says that each minor release of package must result in all libotb* packages to pass through the NEW queue. 

Any thoughts ?

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=809312#15

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Rashad Kanavath <mohammedrashadkm@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic@xs4all.nl> wrote:

On 24-12-15 21:37, Rashad Kanavath wrote:
>> The ITP already exists (#764860) courtesy of Andreas, and is closed in
>> the changelog.
>
> Okay. I can add a comment there to restart the process ?

Adding a comment to mention that OTB packaging is mostly ready is good,
but there is no need to restart the process. The upload of the otb
package will finalize the process.

New packages should always have an associated ITP bugreport, if there is
no ITP yet, but there is a RFP bugreport you can claim it by retitling
the bugreport to an ITP and setting yourself as the owner. If there is
neither, a bugreport should be filed. If you aren't sure that you want
to maintain the package yourself, file and RFP. If you do, and ITP is
appropriate. Filing an RFP won't make a volunteer appear to maintain it,
so you should expect much to happen after filing a RFP bugreport.

That is even better. I send a mail to retitle and change owner for #764860.

See also: https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/

Kind Regards,

Bas

--
 GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1

--

Regards,
   Rashad

--

Regards,
   Rashad