Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "printrun" * Package name : printrun Version : 1:0~20150310-1 Upstream Author : Kliment Yanev * URL : https://github.com/kliment/Printrun * License : GPL-3+ Section : misc It builds those binary packages: printrun - 3D printing host suite To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/printrun Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/printrun/print run_0~20150310-1.dsc More information about printrun can be obtained from http://www.pronter face.com. This package's name might sound familiar to you since there was a previous attempt to package printrun a few years ago by Richard Ulrich. This work is simply a continuation of his plus an update to the latest upstream version. Known and Open Issues (meaning, “Advise Sought Here”): * The messy debian/changelog file and the "re-versioning": The many entries in the changelog file are due to the packaging work initiated by Richard Ulrich about five years ago. In order to give credit for this work these entries were kept “as is”. None of them were actually released and probably they should be modified so the term “UNRELEASED” appeared on them. Richard Ulrich started the packaging using a versioning scheme of the form 1.2.3, which had nothing to do with the upstream versioning scheme, which is in the form of YYYYMMDD. To be coherent with upstream and ensure a potential future smooth transition to a scheme of the form 1.2.3, versioning scheme has been restarted to 1:0~YYYYMMDD. * Pedantic mode of Lintian warns against the lack of a proper upstream changelog: I do not know how to proceed here, upstream development is done via GitHub and there are hundreds of commits from one release to another. * Pedantic mode of Lintian warns against unsigned upstream tarballs. * Executable's (binaries? is there any difference?) names: The upstream package generates the following four executables: - printcore, a standalone non-interactive G-Code sender - pronsole, an interactive command-line host - pronterface, a graphical host software with the same functionality as pronsole - plater, a graphical interface for placing 3D models I have kept it this way to be coherent with upstream, but I feel it would be better if these executables were renamed to something like the following for coherence between the package name and its available commands: - printrun-core, a standalone non-interactive G-Code sender - printrun-cli, an interactive command-line host - printrun, a graphical host software with the same functionality as printrun-cli - printrun-plater, a graphical interface for placing 3D models And one last question, if I were to modify the package after this revision, should I delete the previous upload to debian.mentors.net and upload the new version with the same name? or should I upload a new version named *-2? This is my first attempt at packaging, so every bit of advice and guidance would be more than welcome. Thanks a lot in advance. Regards, Alvaro
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part