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

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

Hi Andreas, everybody,

I moved the package into the git repository:

Vcs-Git: git://git.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/eprover.git

Vcs-Browser: http://git.debian.org/?p=debian-science/packages/eprover.git

and adapted the package for GIT.

It's lintian clean, except for a pedantic warning that it doesn't use a patch system, which I hope is OK, since I've converted my dpatches into git revisions.

It builds using pbuilder.

It's split into 3 packages: The main binary, some examples and a HTML documentation built using tex4ht.

I'd be happy If somebody could upload the package, or perhaps point out that there is something that should be corrected before uploading.

Best regards,


On Thursday 26 February 2009 17:17:08 you wrote:

> 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: