Hi Kilian, On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 10:50 +0200, Kilian Krause wrote: > > Then go ahead and ask upstream about this. They know what use they can > accept. Ok. Later will send an email to author asking for information. > > > > > > 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? I'm looking for additional information (hoping to find them). > > > 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 Or is it because the package is no longer maintained upstream?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 This package is a little bit 'outdated' 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? Honestly? I don't think so.. > Or are you effectively taking up that > source as new upstream? ;-) mmh, I think upstream will not issue anymore because since 2009 is stopped but that's is just thoughts. Thank you. Cheers, Fabrizio.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part