Hi Sławomir, Thank you for your interest and initiative!
Sławomir Wójcik <vald...@gmail.com> writes: [snip] > One issue is that I've created the repo from scratch because git repo is not > reachable, existing package have quite ancient upstream version and it's > debian > files(especially rules is obviously not using dh-elpa) are mostly outdated. > > I can try to use gbp-import-dsc and recreate a new repo if it's really > necessary > or required but I don't see much value in it because: > The issue isn't the "repo" so much as continuity with the existing source package. Two people's occasional contributions over three years are valuable, and erasing them from Debian history would be unjust. > -if we want to adhere to EmacsenTeam Addons packaging policy > (https://wiki.debian.org/EmacsenTeam) and I think we should for better > collaboration and consistency then the package name should be changed to > elpa-scala-mode and existing https://packages.debian.org/sid/scala-mode-el > should be marked as transitional dummy package installing new one, right? > The binary package name should be elpa-scala-mode, but the source package should remain scala-mode-el. > -upstream version in existing package and most of debian files are very old > or outdated > Yup, that's part of the work of adopting a package that needs work ;-) > Please, let me know what should be done. As I pointed out here: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-emacsen/2020/05/msg00039.html > it would be the best if someone from Debian Emacsen Packaging Team will work > with me on this and other packages but maybe someone else will be > interested to > give his/her opinion. > If you proceed with this ITP I'd like to work with you and/or comaintain it, because it's a blocker for my smartparens ITP. Best, Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
