Re: The mistery around libsbml
First thank you for the heads-up. I really thought I should have taken
care of uploads earlier, but I had gotten little time to make sure how
to do that.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:32 PM, David Paleino <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:10:49 +0100 (CET), Andreas Tille wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, David Paleino wrote:
>> > I went back to our SVN and yes, libsbml is there. There is a
>> > debian/changelog full of entries, even some contributions by me (!), but it
>> > appears it's not in Debian (even though the plethora of changelog entries --
>> > moral: "always use UNRELEASED", read further to understand why this
>> > statement).
>> Yes - using UNRELEASED for unreleased packages is really important.
> I really hope everyone will start using it :)
It was just an error. I've been managing debian/* files personally in
the mentioned repository where I use the release name in the changelog
entries for each releases including ones from Ubuntu. I used to
occasionally merge the change to Debian-Med as well.
>> > If the first upload must be done yet, I would like to be added to Uploaders,
>> > DMUA to be set, and we should shrink debian/changelog to just "Initial
>> > release", reopening the bug and closing it with the upload. Also, there's a
>> > 3.3.1 available.
>> I guess the best idea would be to verify the inoffical package at
>> check the packaging stuff in our SVN and try to *really* get a libsbml
>> package out in our repository.
> Well, I'm doing this right now.
I think the files in the Debian-med's repository are already up-to-date.
>> > (and please don't upload, the C# bindings need some special care taken for
>> > the Mono 2.0 transition ongoing in experimental -- I will do that myself
>> > once this "issue" is solved)
Could you elaborate on this a bit more? I spent a hard time getting
libsbml to fit to the Debian's CLI policy.