Re: Requests to sponsor new library packages (was: why?)
2009/8/19 Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>:
> I've had to do this with Perl modules once - I wanted to package
> a particular module, but it had a chain of dependencies that were
> not packaged yet. What I did was file a series of ITP bugs,
> stating my intentions clearly - first for the "target" package,
> saying "This module also needs So-And-So and This-And-That, which
> will be ITP'd separately", and then for the dependencies, each ITP
> stating "This module is needed for the packaging of So-And-So (ITP #NNN)".
> A couple of days later, helpful people from the Debian Perl Group
> did the last part that I'd missed - made the ITP bugs block one
> another in the proper order.
>
> Thus, anyone who reads the library bug sees "it is needed for
> ITP #NNN", and anyone who reads the original ITP bug sees "blocked
> by #NNN" and knows why it hasn't been RFS'd yet.
For those who are filing lots of ITPs like this, a reminder of the
devref recommendations about new packages:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/08/msg00301.html
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: