Am Montag, 20. Februar 2006 12:33 schrieben Sie: > > That leaves the question if the previously seperated changelogs should be > > included? > > It would help to have it documented somehow, not as if I would ever read > a file called README. I'll see what can be done to include them... > > Intention was to leave package in there current state and address the > > presently filed bugs after the first upload. > > I can live with that, but expect a long delay in NEW if the diff is huge > and/or complicated. Some people actually read them, I was told. > > >>1. If it's going to end up in a separate package anyway, there is no > >>point in pulling in source code from other projects as a patch. > > > > I didn't but upstream did. Previously, upstream seperated the source in > > three packages but gave up on that with the current release (it is a > > configure parameter now to build the apps). > > Yes, but it shows up as added files in the Debian patch, which it > shouldn't IMO, especially if it builds upon a library. Ok, I'll remove them the .pc directory > > What about the linda-warning?: > > W: libopenobex; Paketversion 1.1-1 ist geringer als 1:1.0.0-rel-3. > > > > I was under the assumption that I don't have to take the epoch over to > > the new package (binary package names are different, source package name > > is different). However, the linda test may be broken. > > Yes, the linda test probably goes through the changelog only, which is > the only thing it can do, as it cannot check whether the package built > different binaries before. Did really all of the binary package names > change? For the previous library: yes. The now two additional packages previously had: openobex-apps (1.0.0-rel-6) ircp (0.3-2) Should be ok. I just got approval from the ircp maintainer to take over. > >>>I also plan on packaging other OBEX related packages, e.g. wnpp bug > >>>#238314. > >> > >>Are you by chance interested in taking over ussp-push as well? > > > > I am not sure as obexftp can do the same thing by now (and qobex, too) > > when using no uuid. However, I'll take a look at it, maybe there's more > > to it than the description says. > > Really? I thought PUSH was pretty much a different protocol, with a > different purpose, on a different channel, just using the same object > format. As I said, I'll have a look at it. The effects on my hardware (several Siemens mobile phones) is the same for both. HS
Attachment:
pgpGFs6GuCQWt.pgp
Description: PGP signature