On 11-06-06 at 11:28am, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 07:34:31PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On 11-06-05 at 06:34pm, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > > While updating libio-aio-perl I've noticed that both the nodejs > > > and libio-aio-perl packages bundle the libeio library [0], and I > > > was wondering if it makes sense to package it as a stand-alone > > > package (as per Debian Policy §4.13) instead, like many other > > > distributions do (Fedora, RHEL, OpenSUSE, ...). > > > > > > I haven't tried to build libio-aio-perl (it will need some > > > patches, coordinating with upstream will be sensible) or nodejs > > > (this seems easier) with the stand-alone library yet, but I think > > > it may be worth a try. > > > > > > I've set-up an initial version of the libeio package on git.d.o at > > > [1], (note that I've not filed an ITP for it yet, and I won't if > > > we decide that the package is not needed), and I could also take > > > care of it in the future if I find a sponsor, or a DD > > > co-maintainer. > > > > Makes good sense to mantain that library separately. Great that > > you've already done the initial preparations - please do go ahead > > with filing an ITP for it! > > > > If you don't mind swithing the packaging style from the current > > short-form dh to CDBS, then I would be happy to help maintain it. I > > can do the transition, or I can guide you - both is fine with me. > > > > Also fine with you keeping current packaging style and finding > > someone else to sponsor/co-maintain. > > I've done the switch to cdbs (it's in the 'cdbs' branch of the git > repo), feel free to do any modifications you find appropriate (you > know cdbs better then me). I'll merge into master when it's ready. Excellent. But why not merge right away? That eases use of git-buildpackage (else I need to explicitly tell that I use unusual branch names). Inotice you added a .gbp.conf - that is better placed as debian/gbp.conf. Also, I dislike versioning it 3.9 unless you are pretty certain that upstream CVS tags are releases, not branches. I find it more appropriate that we follow the version explicitly declared in configure.ac and call our unofficial release 1.0~0.cvs20110526. Using "~" leaves room for upstream official release, and "0." leaves room for eventual switching to a different VCS or maybe us changing our mind with VCS versioning - both without introducing an epoch. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature