Bug#685039: developers-reference: please document what is needed to reintroduce a package

[Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org>]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 08:38:51PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> 
> > My patch does not seem to have been committed to the SVN repository,
> > could someone do that please?
> 
> Apparently I need an ack on my patch to devref about the procedures
> needed when re-introducing packages. I would appreciate it if someone
> from the debian-qa list (CCed) could take a look at the patch and
> suggest if the patch needs to be changed or is suitable for committing.
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=20;filename=reintroducing-packages.patch;att=1;bug=685039

Hi Paul,

I'm looking at this now.  I agree with most of your patch.  I'm having doubts
on this paragraph :

  |  <para>
  |  You should base your work on the latest packaging available that is suitable.
  |  That might be the latest version from <literal>unstable</literal>, which will
  |  still be present in the <ulink url="&snap-debian-org;">snapshot archive</ulink>.
  |  Or the version control system used by the previous maintainer might contain
  |  newer packaging. Check if the control file of the previous package contained
  |  any headers linking to the version control system for the package and if it
  |  still exists.
  |  </para>

I suggest to replace the paragraph quoted above by these two paragraphs :

  |  <para>
  |  You should base your work on the latest packaging available that is suitable.
  |  That might be the latest version from <literal>unstable</literal>, which will
  |  still be present in the <ulink url="&snap-debian-org;">snapshot archive</ulink>.
  |  </para>
  |  <para>
  |  The version control system used by the previous maintainer might contain useful
  |  changes, so it might be a good idea to have a look there.  Check if the control
  |  file of the previous package contained any headers linking to the version
  |  control system for the package and if it still exists.
  |  </para>

Other than that, I read good info in your patch, so I think it's a good
addition.

Regards,

Bart Martens