Bug#398198: Last update on pkg
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
> > Marc-André, Mathias: who is going to maintain the package for Debian?
> I am very interested in getting that package into Debian (and Ubunutu).
> So I am interested in keeping that package up-to-date. On the other hand
> I don't have much knowledge about Debian package maintenance and I also
> do not want to dive too deeply into this matter. So I am pretty fine, if
> we both are listed as maintainer, but I'll also will not hide, when
> Marc-André wants to focus on other things but the vala package. Just
> need someone who tolds me, when I do not meet Debians packaging
> standards.
Debian and Ubuntu packaging are pretty close, but I think that, as you
noted, Debian has higher standards for some things like the copyright
file; beside, as a sponsor I have to enforce higher than average
standards to new maintainers.
The real question is whether you, Mathias, accept responsability for
bugs in the Debian distributions or not. You can be listed as
Maintainer or Uploader in Debian, but only if this means that you can
be contacted for bugs in Debian and if you accept responsability to fix
RC bugs timely (or to call for help).
I hope I don't sound too "official", I wanted to make it clear what
should draw the line of who gets listed in the control file in Debian.
So, Mathias: are you interested in being listed as a Maintainer or
Uploader? I would certainly value your participation in the Debian
packaging as I've seen you contributed some patches to vala upstream.
:)
Perhaps this is the occasion for you to work directly in Debian; as I
understand it, every upload in Debian can be merged in Ubuntu
semi-automatically. Who knows what charms you'll discover in Debian!
> > Marc-André or Mathias, I will need to know where you downloaded
> > Mathias' packaging from and/or under which license the packaging by
> > Mathias is.
> My packaging variant should be found within this ticket. License? Didn't
> expect I'd have to declare some license terms for stuff like packaging.
> Expected packaging to happen under the same license as the packaged
> application -- LGPL-2.1 in the case of Vala.
Not everybody does declare a license on the packaging. I think it's
legitimate to claim copyright and licensing given the amount of time
some packages need, but I rarely claim these myself.
However, as some persons do, and because the new dh_make templates
encourage this, I must double-check the licensing of anything used to
create Debian packages, such as your packaging here.
> Seems like Unbuntu is more lax regarding content of the copyright file.
Yes; I had to redo the copyright in all packages I grabbed from Ubuntu
until now due to these double standards. The Debian standards are
truly enforced by our ftpmasters. You can learn more in the NEW FAQ:
<http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html> which points at:
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html>
> Config.guess and .sub are not updated anymore, as I removed
> simple-patchsys.mk, which merges buildcore.mk from my rules file.
debhelper.mk will pull buildcore.mk as well; but you need to build-dep
on autotools-dev for config.guess and config.sub to be present in the
build environment, otherwise cdbs' buildcore can't update these.
Bye,
PS: please send me packages as URLs to a .dsc which I can dget or attach
both the .dsc and the .diff.gz; it's far safer.
--
Loïc Minier
Reply to: