Re: RFS: sshfp - DNS SSHFP records generator
Le lundi 23 juin 2008 à 14:59 -0300, Maximiliano Curia a écrit :
> Hola Julien Valroff!
> El 09/08/2007 a las 12:50 escribiste:
> > Dear mentors,
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "sshfp".
> > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> I had recently being using sshfp, so I believe it would be a useful addition to
> the archive.
I am glad someone is interested in this package.
> I've made several changes to your package, listed bellow:
> - I used the pristine tar.gz, as I don't see any reason not to.
The pristine tarball already has a debian/ directory. Keeping it makes
the diff.gz harder to read, but I don't know if there is any consensus
on this point.
I remember having read Daniel Baumann's recommendations  when taking
the decision to remove the existing debian/ directory.
> - I had removed the previous contents of debian/changelog, as the pre-debian
> packaging history is of little/no use.
In that case, I totally agree. But it might be a good idea to keep
previous entries in case they are useful to understand current
> - I removed the patch that replaced © by (c) in the manpage, as manpages now
> support utf-8 encodings.
> - I changed packaging from cdbs to dh, as cdbs is too dificult to follow. I
> used dh instead of plain debhelper to keep the debian/rules files small and
> simple. Even though this increased debian/compat to 7. (not really needed,
> but I really don't like cdbs)
> - I added dpatch support and dependency. (as a replacement of simplepatchsys)
It is a matter of taste, I have nothing against using debhelper. I have
never used dh, but it looks quite nice (I still need to study this
deeper when I have more time)
> - I created a patch that fixes some quirks in the Makefile (should be forward
> to upstream).
> - I created a patch that fixes some quirks in the manpage (should be forward to
great, have you already forwarded these patches?
> - I changed the debian/copyright file to include the same text as is presented in
> the source code.
Maybe this file could be switched to the machine parsable format, what
do you think?
> - I added a debian/watch file (always a good idea to have one).
it is indeed
> - I added myself as uploader.
> - I added the Homepage: field.
Wasn't it already added? I have a version with this field, as well as
the Vcs-* fields - I might have forgotten to upload this new version to
I think it would be useful to add these Vcs-* fields once they have
reached a definitive location.
Adding "XS-DM-Upload-Allowed: yes" would also be a good thing for me if
you don't object to this idea.
> - I upgraded the Standards-Version, no changes needed.
> The modified package can be fetch from:
> Please review those changes and contact me when you feel that your package is
> good to be uploaded.
I think everything is great, but still have a doubt about using the
pristine tarball as orig.tar.gz
What do other readers of email@example.com think of it?
Would you be interested in co-maintaining this package? Not a lot of
work anyway, but I could then benefit from your experience.
Thanks again for having worked on this package