Re: ODIN

[Thies Jochimsen <thies@jochimsen.de>]

Hi Andreas,

thank you for your remarks! I will try to address as many as possible
in the next release.
I understand that all the points that you have listed are important for
an official package. However, changing some of them (no debian directory
in main SVN tree, Debian-package-specific Changelog) would, at this point,
just mean more work to do (Currently, all I have to do to create a new 
release, including the Debian package, is checking out the code from SVN and 
issuing a 'make release' ).
Since I am supporting ODIN on many other platforms (Windows, MacOS, VxWorks),
I cannot put all my effort into an official Debian package. However, I would 
be very happy and cooperative if someone is willing to work on this.

Thies


> Sure.  I just wanted to wait for other potential sponsors and they are
> Debian centric in this sense that for an inofficial package they are
> non-issues, but have to be fixed for an official package.
>
>    1. It is not sane to incorporate the debian packaging directory
>       into the upstream tarball.  In case the packaging has to
>       be changed a new upstream tarball would be required or users
>       would be confused which debian directory is relevant.  The
>       easiest way to cope with that is just to leave it out.
>
>       As a consequence the really unusual Makefile.{am,in} would have
>       to vanish from here.
>
>    2. debian/copyright is missing download URL and copyright statement.
>
>    3. debian/changelog has to be a real changelog
>
>    4. debian/control: Current Standards version is 3.7.2
>
> This was only a very quick look on the source tarball.  I expect more
> issues once I would have tried to really build the package.
>
> Kind  regards and thanks for your work anyway
>
>            Andreas.