Re: Requests to sponsor new library packages
On 2009-08-19, Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> writes:
>
>> On 2009-08-19, Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>> > That's interesting, thank you for that perspective. What do you
>> > propose, then, for a maintainer who wants to get a new package into
>> > Debian, but that package requires one or more separately-packaged
>> > libraries that *also* need to be sponsored into Debian before the
>> > ???interesting??? package can go in?
>>
>> Request sponsorship together. And read up on library packaging.
>
> Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> writes:
>
>> Put them all into the same (or linked) RFS.
>
> I obviously wasn't clear on this point: The library package is prepared
> *first*, to provide functionality needed by the dependent package.
> They're not ready for sponsorship together. What advice then?
Make the plan clear that you need this as a part of packaging of
"coolapp".
> In my case, ???fooapp??? needs ???libbar???, which in turn needs ???libbaz???. So,
> with only a limited amount of time, I work first on ???libbaz???, and that
> package is ready for sponsorship before the others. Should I wait until
> all three are done ??? an indeterminate amount of time ??? before making an
> RFS for the ready-to-inspect ???libbaz????
package libbaz, RFS it telling the plan
package libbar, RFS it, repeating libbaz and still telling the plan
package fooapp, rfs it, repeat the libbar and libbaz RFSs.
Note that libraries are quite hard to test for a sponsor with just being
a library package and some headers.
/Sune
Reply to: