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

Bug#516545: ITP: eprover -- The Equational Theorem Prover E



Hi Andreas,

On Wednesday 25 February 2009 16:08:59 you wrote:

> Some (nitpicking!!) idea: Have you considered to move the

> examples into a separate package. These are not really of

> a size which should be separated I just want to know whether

> you know about the option to separate architeture independant

> files into a separate package exspecially of the package might

> work without these files. If you confirm that you know this

> option but decided against it intentionally because the examples

> are a very impornat part of the package it is perfectly fine

> for me.

I wasn't aware of that, but it seems to me to be a good suggestion. Especially, if the number of examples will grow in the future. So I've split the package into eprover and eprover-examples.

> Regarding team maintenance: I've seen that you have patched

> several files and did not used a patch system (like quilt or

> dpatch). Doing so seems to make Git the better choice for

> a Version Control System because we have the policy to not

> commit the upstream source to SVN and use patches instead.

> The Git workflow (which I'm not very comfortable with) seems

> to relay on commiting the whole source and patch the files

> accordingly. So the question is: Have you made up your mind

> about commiting eprover to the Debian Science reporitory?

> While this is not required to find a sponsor I would like

> to recommend this once more. In this case you should add

> Vcs-Git fields to debian/control. Just take a look at other

> packages in the Vcs and also see how Maintainer and Uploaders

> are handled there.

Yes, I'd prefer to find a sponsor in Debian Science. This seems to be a much better option. I've applied already for membership in Debian Science and now I'm waiting for it to be processed.

I studied a bit more Debian manuals and I used dpatch to trace my modifications to the original source. When doing so I also realized, that some of the original build scripts modified some source files in place. This is why the diff contained more files then actually needed. So I rewrote the makefiles a bit and it should be much better now.

Best regards,

Petr


Reply to: