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

Bug#322091: Bluefish

Am Mittwoch, den 10.08.2005, 14:14 -0300 schrieb Leo "Costela" Antunes:
> On Qua, 2005-08-10 at 18:48 +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > Short advice: The source contains obsolete bluefish_icon1.xpm and
> > doubled (bluefish.)postinst and (bluefish.)postrm. 
> Cool, I didn't want to step on Evo's shoes by removing stuff I didn't
> think was usefull (but could have been somehow), so this cleaned up
> version could be your first official upload.

IMO postinst, postrm and bluefish_icon1.xpm were added by accident (they
are not part of the upstream source, because (of several reasons) there
are bluefish.postinst, bluefish.postrm and bluefish_icon.xpm). I always
updated the Debian packaging files to have a clean packaging process.

> > 1.0.3rc1 is out.
> I don't think it's a good idea to upload RC-level versions,

Oh, of course. I only mentioned it because of your note about the next
release, which is currently prepared (fixes some critical bugs).

> unless
> you're pretty sure these versions are just for really minor bug solving.
> Else they might end up generating unecessary and duplicated bug reports,
> > But I would suggest an alternative solution: I am member of the upstream
> > authors team and I am maintaining the Debian packaging files since a
> > while. Further I (try to) fix the mentioned bugs for bluefish directly
> > in the upstream. It is really no big deal to package bluefish. So maybe
> > it is a good or even the best solution, if I take over the
> > maintainership, because I am directly involved in upstream. I am no DD
> > so I would need a sponsor. If you have questions about my skills, please
> > ask. My (unofficial) packaging work for Debian can be found at
> > http://debian.wgdd.de/debian/. Please think about this offer and tell me
> > your opinion.
> In this case I think it's really a good idea for you to be the
> maintainer.
> OTOH, it's generally regarded[1] as the best option not to include the
> debian dir upstream,

I know. It was added a long time ago and I left it so others can prepare
the Debian package too (mainly for testing RCs and CVS). Because the CVS
is the source (not prepared from e.g. 'make dist'), it is not so easy to
remove it all.

> so it would be nice to remove it, if possible.

IMHO it was not a disadvantage till now (I mean only this special case),
so we could also leave it for now. But I agree, it should be changed in

> Is the version on your (Daniel Leidert's) site already cleaned up?

These packages always contain some additional stuff (to send bug-reports
regarding my packages to me and not to the official BTS). The files in
the upstream source should be clean, so you only need to add a new
Changelog entry.

> Just as a side question: Daniel Baumann is already in queue to become a
> DD, what about Daniel Leidert? This is not really important, it's mainly
> just curiosity so I can understand the future 'modus operandi' for the
> uploads (Will I - or any other DD, for that matter - have to sponsor
> each and every upload?).

ATM I don't have the time for the whole action to become a DD, so I only
try to help. I would need a sponsor. But I use bluefish and I support
the development, so I think it will not become orphaned again soon :)

> [1] allright, I'm to lazy to find the links to the discussions regarding
> this, but I can find it if you reeeeally want to know =]

I read them too. It's ok.

Regards, Daniel

Reply to: