Hi Emmanuel/people, [Let me know if putting 2 mailings in Cc is making too much noise.] I'm looking for a sponsor for a 1st dependency I submitted on @mentors ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=855941 ) A few others should follow to bring a running sbt, but I'd like to show a first real package and have your feedback before spamming other RFS. Thanks for reading, F. On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:24:06 +0100, Frederic Bonnard <frediz@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 23:16:52 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> wrote: > > Le 18/11/2016 à 14:41, Frederic Bonnard a écrit : > > > > Hi Frederic, > > > > > There is much work to finalize this if that is ok, but indeed, before > > > continuing I'd like to know if I'm on the good path. > > > > This looks like a valid approach. Did you use Scala 2.10 or 2.11 for > > compiling SBT? > > I used scala 2.11 as it's the one available in unstable. > > > If you have a working SBT package I suggest uploading it > > now to experimental/non-free, this will enable others to jump in and > > help with the dependencies. > > Well, that's where I'm unsure. > I packaged in a functional manner all the sbt components I listed above, > meaning, that it would need further work (on control/copyright/...etc files). > This was a POC and functionally speaking, that seems to work. > Now if the approach I followed is valid according to Debian policy, I'll > do things properly to push sbt and that minimal set of dependencies in experimental. > I don't think it would be ok to do a binary upload. My idea was to do a > full clean source upload, right ? > If so, I'll focus on the coming days/weeks to provide all this. > > F.
Attachment:
pgpQ192Xmv1Yc.pgp
Description: PGP signature