Hi, Am Montag, den 09.05.2016, 23:01 +0300 schrieb Ilias Tsitsimpis: > > On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 11:53PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > > > welcome! Anything in particular you are interested in? > Thanks! I was thinking of starting with updating some existing packages, > in order to get myself familiar with the procedures and practices of the > team. I believe the haskell-language-python package (an update for which > was requests a few days ago in the irc channel) is a good candidate. I > have already tested it with package-plan and there doesn't seem to be > any integration errors. What do you think? If the package-plan is happy, then it is usually ok. There once was the plan to follow Stackage closely, but since the aeson issue, where Stackage downgraded, this has not be strictly followed. We should decide what do there. > > The Haskell Group has a few under-documented procedures and practices, > > it might take a while to get used to it. In any case, don’t be shy and > > ask on IRC or on the mailing list. > I noticed that almost all of the packages maintained by the Haskell > Group are of priority extra. Following a recent discussion on > debian-devel[1], I believe most of these packages belong to priority > 'Optional'. Is there any reason not to change this? I deliberately chose extra after reading https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities Unless you know that you need them, you don’t need to install haskell libraries. > I also noticed that the uploads are not marked as 'Team uploads' and in > many cases the uploader is not listed in the Uploaders field. As a > result, lintian reports changelog-should-mention-nmu. Is there a > consensus about which is preferred (using the 'Team uploads' or adding > oneself to the Uploaders field)? Adding yourself to Uploaders is fine, but I simply disagree with lintian here. There is really no point in cluttering every single changelog entry with Team uploaders. The problem with adding yourself to uploaders is that the archive will start to spam you with mail that you receive anyways via the pkg- haskell-maintainers list. So we end up putting the first uploader into Uploaders (just to make it policy compliant, not because it makes a lot of sense) and then ignore it. We generally interpret the rules in favor of less manual work, otherwise maintaining so many packages becomes unfeasible. > In the GettingStarted[2] document, it is stated that: > > > > > Until we get our local changes pushed to upstream, you need to > > locally build an experimental cabal-debian tool. > It seems to me that those changes have been pushed upstream. Is that > correct? Should I update the wiki? Yes, I believe that is correct. There is always the chance that the odd bug fix is not yet upstreamed and packaged, but in general, it should work. Good questions! I have a good feeling about you starting to contribute here :-) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org • https://people.debian.org/~nomeata XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part