Re: RFS: sitecopy
Philipp Kern wrote:
Do you know why there is an outdated debian/ subdirectory in the
upstream tarball?
For this release, it's just the way the upstream developer put it
together :-) -- it's outdated because the last time it was touched by a
debian maintainer was for the 0.11.4 upstream release. My thoughts on
this were to get this release out, then ask upstream to either remove
the debian directory altogether (using arguments from the earlier
discussion in -mentors; thanks all!) or to at least synch it back up.
And if the current version of sitecopy does not work with the old
xsitecopy I would suggest a ``Conflicts: xsitecopy'' instead of the
versioned one.
The actual problem here is that xsitecopy is a Gnome 1.x application
that hasn't been ported to 2.x (and can't be built on a 2.x system).
There are some bugs against xsitecopy that reflect this (155009,
208510). The upstream developer has worked a little bit on a 2.x
update, but has no definite plans to finish the work.
Given that background, my approach to taking up maintenance of the
package was:
1) get a 0.15.0 release of sitecopy (console version) out by eliminating
the xsitecopy targets from debian/rules (otherwise, it would be FTBFS).
2) leave the existing Conflicts: in place as-is, because it suggested an
actual conflict with the earlier version of xsitecopy.
3) as an interim step, possibly ask ftp-masters to remove the existing
(semi-broken) xsitecopy-0.11.4-6 package (still undecided about that)
4) After this release goes out, begin working with the upstream to try
and get a new xsitecopy that could be added back to the sitecopy source
package for some subsequent release.
Comments on this strategy would be appreciated ;-)
--
Reed Snellenberger
GPG KeyID: 5A978843
rsnellenberger-at-houston.rr.com
Reply to: