Rince scrisse:
I don't remember if I've already replied to this mail and can't find
the mail among other sent, so I'm resending. Sorry if this is a
duplicate.
Not a duplicate. :)
> Hi,
> I've been rather busy of late, and as I was unsure of how to proceed
> beyond correcting the flaws in my package (specifically, in regard to
> the suggestion of others that I avail myself of the the forensic
> software packaging team), I found it all to easy to delay the matter
> until I was less caught up in affairs.
Daniel replied saying that this package is welcome in the
forensic repo. I'm quite interested in this package too, so I'd either
suggest putting it there or in collab-maint (I personally prefer git).
I was looking, and didn't see what I should do to submit it to the repo in a glance, so I delayed it, as I've had less time over the last few weeks.
Now that this is sorted out, I'm responding to you.
> I uploaded another copy of my package to Debian Mentors a bit ago - it
> contained the 0.6.0 version of ext3grep, and as far as I know, no
> errors save one - I have not yet corrected the copyright information
> for kernel-jbd.h, as I did not find a good example of how to state
> the copyright information for that file.
What's particular about that? It's a normal GPLv2 file with a
third-party author. You just have to give him his credit.
See http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat for more complex
examples.
Anyway I still strongly object to your choice of having a -dbg package
for a simple single binary package. As I've already said, I won't
upload such a package in debian (unless I'm proved wrong or got a very
rational motivation, of course :).
Fair enough. My motivation is that the developer is very particular that this is alpha software, and so is insistent that people build with debug symbols as soon as they complain. I thought it would be reasonable to save them the time.
Also, personally, it frustrates me when I have to recompile a program in order to use the debug symbols, so I'd like to save other people the issue when I can. (In particular - the probable use case is that this will be run from a LiveCD, and live recompiling on the CD is not always an option.)
> If you have any advice on either of these, I'd be more than happy to
> improve my package and re-submit it for a sponsor and comments on
> debian-mentors.
I think I will go for a co-maintenance with you after I get your reply,
as I'm quite interested in having it in place for Lenny.
I, too, would love to see this in Lenny, and would be happy to see you as co-maintainer.
So what is the Way Forward now? Putting the package in some kind of version control (I'm not clear on how version control works with Debian packages), and then submitting it to the equivalent review process in the Forensics team?
Cheers,
- Rich