Bug#304570: Code::blocks packaging
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Woo, I had almost given up trying to find a sponsor for this package,
most people took off screaming :-).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkjBm80ACgkQpblTBJ2i2pufMgCbBretKAaIRDzB3S3h6/syJJL2
6f8An3S2klIL/QWGbFwVygH+ZFMEFt7L
=j+IH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:57 PM, George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>
> I found your package on mentors archive, and I'm generally interested in
> uploading codeblocks to Debian archive, since I intend to use it. In fact we
> have already gave it a try and found it much lightweight and intuitive as
> compared to eclipse + CDT for instance and AFAICS reading that buglog there
> are quite some people interested in codeblocks package who are now using
> their own local ones. Packaging looks fine to, but some comments though:
>
> * I found some pieces of code which seem to be external projects (tinyxml,
> wxscintilla, both hosted at sf.net); a simple grep for `author' or `file by'
> would reveals these details. Also licensecheck (devscripts) would be helpful.
> So, these licences and copyrights should also be listed in debian/copyright
> file, which presumably is in machine interpretable format. However, having so
> much code duplication doesn't help security, so we would be better off
> approaching upstream and find ways to use these packages (not packaged yet)
> separately, and not carry them with codeblocks source tree. These could be
> sort of tedious and time consuming dealing with upstream.
>
Probably a good idea, but it requires a lot of coordination with
upstream, which I'm not sure they're willing to do. The copyright file
however I agree can be updated.
> * I haven't looked at their trunk lately, but is there any progress on sorting
> out that `global plugins path' hack you have applied to the package ?
>
No response on multiple threads and posts (not just me) to fix this
bug. I get the feeling its not going to get fixed anytime soon.
> * I also think that such a tremendous package as a codebase should be
> maintained by a team, ubuntu guys are also welcome of course. Any
> suggestions ?
>
The package is maintained by the MOTU team in Ubuntu (I did the
initial packaging work, and a peek at the changelog shows that its
already an accepted Ubuntu package), but I have no objections to
making it a team package; My only condition is I allow day-zero NMUs
on my packages, and any co-maintainer must allow that on packages I
co-maintain with. Other then that, no issues with any NM or DD who
wishs to work on it.
Michael
> [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
>
> --
> pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
>
Reply to: