On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:57:54 +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> > > * What shall we do about the "trailing part" ('debian uupdate' or
> > > similar)? It's hardly used, and I'd personally prefer to remove it
> > > to get more consistency but there might be others who actually
> > > like/use it.
> I drop this when I see it too. When I get to review a package, "uscan
> --force --rename" is the first thing I do after "svn update" and if it
> fires up uupdate or svn-upgrade or whatever I am a bit surprised.
:)
> I find the hook useful when the upstream source needs to be repackaged
> for some reason.
Which is an additional argument for keeping it (in the re-write done
by packagecheck).
> About the "policy", I think that it is sufficient that dh-make-perl uses
> what is considered "widely accepted" and be done with it. Writing down
> every bit of dh-make-perl templates in a "policy" with the note that
> "packages differ and deviations are possible" seems like duplicated work
> to me.
I think it's not about describing what dh-make-perl does (which
already has this new pattern for watch files, at least in the repo)
but about what we expect that packagers check when they
(create/)update/import a package.
Not that I consider it necessary but I see Julian's point, and I
think a short paragraph doesn't hurt.
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/
`- NP: Peter Jones: Fight Back
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature