On 03/08/10 20:52, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 07:58:08PM -0400, Felipe Sateler a écrit : >> >> that would imply changing the scm tool for the maintainer (which I >> noted above is not me). > > I am confused… > > In the upstream Subversion repository, there is a debian directory whose > maintainer is a Code::Blocks developer. > > http://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/codeblocks/trunk/debian/control Yes. > > In the ITP bug, it is mentionned that the package prepared for Debian > is already in Ubuntu. The Debian directory is not the same and the VCS > containing the source package is not mentionned. > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=304570#101 > > On your side, you would like to contribute as co-maintainer to the Debian > package, which has not been accepted yet. > > It has been proposed that you ignore upstream's debian directory using the 3.0 > (quilt) format, but if your intention is to be a co-maintainer, then the > decision of which format to use is not entirely in you hands. > > If your goal is to stay close to the debianization work of the upstream > maintainers, you can pull the upstream Subversion repository with git-svn. > Using git you can produce patches that can be sent upstream. This does not > require them to switch to git. > > This said, I recommend that you do not ignore the package that is already in Ubuntu… > > http://packages.ubuntu.com/codeblocks Hmm, I think I need to polish my reading skills... I missed the part where codeblocks was actually uploaded to Ubuntu. I will get in touch with the Ubuntu maintainers, then, so that we can avoid duplicating effort. Thanks for noticing this! -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature