Bug#929467: RFS: tfortune-1.0.0 [ITP]
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 12:42:48PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 15:49, Adam Borowski wrote
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 02:31:09PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote:
> > > That's the old hen and egg problem: One needs to provide a bug number
> > > in debian/changelog for the initial RFS, i.e. before the bug has been
> > > opened. So I put a dummy number there and forgot to update it after
> > > the bug number had been assigned. Fixed now.
> >
> > The RFS and ITP are unrelated.
>
> IDGI. For an RFS email one needs to provide the source package with
> a debian/ directory, correct? If so, the debian/changelog file must
> contain a line of the form
>
> * Initial Release. Closes: #929467
>
> But the number will only be assigned after the mail has been sent.
> What am I missing here?
You file ITP stating you intend to work on package X.
Once you're done, you file a RFS.
> > > > On the other hand, the package neither ships any data files, nor can't
> > > > handle their lack gracefully: it crashes with:
> OK. Do you think it makes sense to provide another package which
> installs a few tagged epigrams in, say, /usr/share/games/tfortunes
> and make tfortune fall back to this directory if ~/.tfortune does
> not exist?
That'd be nice.
What about tfortune-data that ships as many good epigrams as you have,
that's Recommended: by tfortune?
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Sometimes you benefit from delegating stuff. For example,
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ this way I get to be a vegetarian.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Reply to: