Ciao Fabrizio, On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 10:25 +0200, Fabrizio Regalli wrote: > On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 21:00 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: > > > Reviewing your package I find a bit of chat on the ITP bug yet no notion if > > that "problem" of using Ubuntu logo has yet been solved and how. > > Unfortunately, no. > I need to understand: > > - if the logo can be changed > - in which way Then go ahead and ask upstream about this. They know what use they can accept. > > > > The manpage is .. uhm, extremely brief. Sure that's all you want to tell > > your users? And even looking at the webpage indicated there doesn't > > substantially yield more information IMHO. > > I checked in all web page for stretch out a bit the description, but I > haven't found nothing interested users. Then just ditch the manpage entirely? Or put something there that does actually interest users? > > The implementation of build-stamp in debian/rules is screwed. The stamp is > > generated *before* the build target is even started. For a personal choice > > I'd vote for switching this to dh-style as it'll become much nicer that way. > > I'll do it. > > > > As Ubuntu is a "special" upstream though, I'd also vote for using a shared > > approach that both Debian and Ubuntu can live with and share the same code. > > That being said have you already pushed your modifications to debian/rules > > back upstream? What did upstream have to say about this? > > This is my first approach packaging something that comes from Ubuntu to > Debian. > I treated this like any other package. Most likely I miss something. > Usually, is there a common way to package software from Ubuntu upstream? As this comes from Ubuntu you should try to keep this somewhat in sync with their version to not unnecessarily duplicate efforts. Apart from that Ubuntu is just like any other upstream. It's just that you can copycat better and shouldn't actively work against that bonus. > > > > Your patch wasn't sent upstream. Is there a reason for this? Does Ubuntu not > > have the required command? AFAICS they also pull in the gksu via Depends for > > their versions. > > > > Or is it because the package is no longer maintained upstream? Last commit > > is from 2009. > > The second one. This package is a little bit 'outdated' That's why I'm asking. Are you sure upstream will support it in case security patches will be required? Or are you effectively taking up that source as new upstream? ;-) -- Best regards, Kilian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part