[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Care of your packages Was: Accepted dh-ocaml 0.4.1~bpo50+1 (source all)

Hi Mehdi,

please ... lets try to avoid finger pointing!

On Tuesday 02 February 2010 10:37:55 Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Jan Wagner wrote:
> > Okay ... lets summarize what we have concluded in our discussion:
> >
> > * My dh-ocaml upload was rather suboptimal.
> >
> > From my POV, it would be nice if such a behavior (raising build-deps for
> > transioning) is documented in a prominent place, for example
> > README.source in all involved packages. This would life making easier for
> > people outside the OCalm Group to understand the work(flow), for example
> > when bughunting (on BSP or where ever) and even backporting. This should
> > result into making your life easier too. :)
> There was a version bump for dh-ocaml from 0.4 to (directly) 0.9.
> Shouldn't that warrant the backporter somehow? And in general, asking

I was just refering to the raised dependencies for transition reasons. As it 
seems that's a usual procedere in your group, why not leave a hint in every 
involved package? In my eyes the changelog could be missinterpreted.

> the usual maintainer doesn't harm so that you're sure about the
> implications of the backport.

I totally agree with you (and I think I stated this more than once in this 
recent discussion). Unfortunately my experiences in the past was often, that 
maintainers often don't care about backporting (,even of stable and old-
stable). This is absolutly not true in general and I had also positive 
experiences here. 

With kind regards, Jan.
Never write mail to <waja@spamfalle.info>, you have been warned!
Version: 3.12
GIT d-- s+: a C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E--- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE Y++
PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI D+ G++ e++ h---- r+++ y++++ 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: