Re: [MoM] CamiTK packaging first part
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:10:01PM +0100, Emmanuel Promayon wrote:
> >I've checked that it is just a small file but wanted to make you
> >aware about this.
> I just asked the developer of the itkimage extension about it. I will
> let you know if this is a normal or not (I seemed to remember we needed
> the .gz for test reason - the extension should be able to open both, but
> I am not sure)
I have absolutely no problem with this - just wanted to make you aware
about something that might not be intended.
> Ok. I just modified both entries as UNRELEASED (policy are to be respected!)
:-)
> >>From my perspective the package looks fine and I would consider
> >uploading it.
> Here I have another question: as in about a week (or two), there
> should be a new upstream release available (without much changes,
> and if everything goes according to plan!). The question is should
> we wait for that? Is it a problem to have many uploads too close in
> time?
No, there is no problem with frequent uploads. Just try to decide what
is in the best interest of your users (which you know way better then
me.)
> The good thing about uploading now would be to be able to check if
> the new way of handling -fPIC in upstream source works (that is if
> we can definitely confirm that bug #690830 [1] is gone). The bad
> thing is that it uses computer power for something that will be soon
> "outdated"!
As I said - I will not question your decision.
> And here is another question (it is "my" MoM after all!): what is
> the fundamental difference between debian-med and
> debian-med-packaging mailing-lists?
That's a really good question! In practice the difference is not
that big but the main intention is like this:
debian-med@lists.debian.org is intended for users who wo are using
the software we are assembling. The discussion should not be so
highly technicall (but in fact we well not "bann" any discussion
about packaging here.)
debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org is the "Maintainer"
of our packages and the discussion should be focussed on technical
details which might be not interesting for the user of the
packages.
In the end there is no strict borderline between both lists and you are
free to decide what list to use - I guess nobody will blame you to have
used the wrong list.
> I did not manage to decide which one to use for my questions. The wiki says:
> Debian Med - general discussion list (Archives)
> debian-med-packaging - reports and discussions on packages (Archives)
> So I suppose "debian-med-packaging" is better (apart may be for...
> the current question), but I saw a lot of other posts as relevant in
> debian-med.
If you feel like using debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org
it is fine to move there.
Kind regards
Andreas.
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690830 (this is
> a FTBFS on armhf, which I have now way to test on my own I think.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: