Re: RFS: whohas
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.21-1.dsc
> Even if you are unable to sponsor I would appreciate a review.
Here is a review:
Why do you have Vcs-Browser, but not Vcs-Git?
${shlibs:Depends} isn't needed because whohas is a perl script.
Don't forget to send the manual page upstream if you haven't already.
For the manual page you might want to point users at
intro.html/intro.txt in a "SEE ALSO" section.
The "FILES" section in the manual page should talk about ~/.whohas
rather than the script filename.
Will upload once these issues are fixed.
Thanks for packaging whohas BTW, it looks like a quite useful tool for
upstream authors.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: whohas
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 12:29:21PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
> Why do you have Vcs-Browser, but not Vcs-Git?
I wasn't happy that git:// was working properly on that machine, but it
seems to be fine so included the field.
> ${shlibs:Depends} isn't needed because whohas is a perl script.
Removed.
> For the manual page you might want to point users at
> intro.html/intro.txt in a "SEE ALSO" section.
>
> The "FILES" section in the manual page should talk about ~/.whohas
> rather than the script filename.
Added both these and (hopefully) described them nicely.
> Will upload once these issues are fixed.
Uploaded to
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.21-2.dsc
Cheers
--
Jonathan Wiltshire
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 07:37:44PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: > Uploaded. Thanks! > In the next upload, please remove the duplicate space in the last > paragraph of the description. Will do. > Why was your orig.tar.gz not the same as upstream's? Please always use > the upstream tarball unless it has been repacked due to DFSG/other > issues. I used the upstream tarball instead of the one you uploaded to > mentors. Odd, I haven't intentionally touched it. I'll diff them but could it be cruft from git-buildpackage? -- Jonathan Wiltshire signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Uploaded to > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.21-2.dsc Uploaded. In the next upload, please remove the duplicate space in the last paragraph of the description. Why was your orig.tar.gz not the same as upstream's? Please always use the upstream tarball unless it has been repacked due to DFSG/other issues. I used the upstream tarball instead of the one you uploaded to mentors. Please ask upstream to remove the .DS_Store file from their tarballs in future. You might want to prepare a short article for debaday about this tool; it is really useful. Also, please thank upstream for writing it. Please also suggest adding support for freshmeat, the FSF free software directory and debian-unofficial.org. For future uploads, please contact this list or ping me on #debian-mentors and I will upload if I can. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: whohas (bugfix)
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.22-2.dsc Why do you think the information in README.Debian is relevant to anyone installing the package? Also, some typos in README.Debian: Intrebid wih upsream Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: whohas (bugfixes)
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:51:35PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Hi Paul/George/others > > I'm looking for sponsorship for whohas/0.22-3, which closes these bugs: > 510020 510524 513466 513473 513476 > > Partiularly, 510020 and 510524 are aging a bit, so it would be nice to > tidy them up. Pedantic lintian is clean, and all the patches have gone > upstream. > > You can find the dsc at > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.22-3.dsc > > Thanks Uploaded, couldn't find any issues. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas (bugfixes)
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:31:16PM +, Martin Meredith wrote: > Uploaded, couldn't find any issues. Cheers :-) -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas (bug fixes)
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire
wrote:
> I've uploaded whohas/0.21-3 to m.d.n which has patches to close bugs
> 5099975, 510019 and 509981. They have gone upstream for his next
> release.
Uploaded.
Next time, please depend on ${DPATCH_STAMPFN} instead of patch-stamp
in debian/rules.
For the manual page change, once the manual page is accepted upstream,
I would suggest a sed command in debian/rules install or binary rather
than a patch. The file in question will be uncompressed on most
systems and compressed on Debian, so upstream's manual page should
just refer to uncompressed intro.txt and Debian should modify it at
install time. See the nsis package for an (ugly) example of how to do
this. This way you won't have to refresh the patch every time upstream
modifies the manual page around the change.
In future, it is a good idea to document the status of patches
upstream in the patch header/description.
PS: I prefer not to be CCed on RFS mails. If have time I'll upload, if
not someone else will.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: whohas (bug fixes)
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:59:44AM +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> Next time, please depend on ${DPATCH_STAMPFN} instead of patch-stamp
> in debian/rules.
Done.
> For the manual page change, once the manual page is accepted upstream,
> I would suggest a sed command in debian/rules install or binary rather
> than a patch. The file in question will be uncompressed on most
> systems and compressed on Debian, so upstream's manual page should
> just refer to uncompressed intro.txt and Debian should modify it at
> install time. See the nsis package for an (ugly) example of how to do
> this. This way you won't have to refresh the patch every time upstream
> modifies the manual page around the change.
That makes sense; I'll set it up once the manual goes into upstream.
> In future, it is a good idea to document the status of patches
> upstream in the patch header/description.
Done for all existing and new patches.
> PS: I prefer not to be CCed on RFS mails. If have time I'll upload, if
> not someone else will.
Ok, sorry for the noise. I wasn't sure how closely you were watching
-mentors.
I've uploaded 0.21-4 to m.d.n which closes bugs 510189, 510231, 510259,
510152 and 510203. If you've time to take a look and upload that would
be great, I've also sent all the bugs and patches upstream.
I wondered, with this many bugs opened so soon, if whohas wouldn't be
better suited in experimental, but then again most of them have been
because of incorrect urls in the various package searchers, so perhaps
not. Do you have any thoughts?
TIA.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Wiltshire
PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52
Sending of encrypted mail is encouraged
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas (bug fixes)
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Ok, sorry for the noise. I wasn't sure how closely you were watching > -mentors. NP. I watch it quite closely, reading all the mails at least daily. > I've uploaded 0.21-4 to m.d.n which closes bugs 510189, 510231, 510259, > 510152 and 510203. If you've time to take a look and upload that would > be great, I've also sent all the bugs and patches upstream. > > I wondered, with this many bugs opened so soon, if whohas wouldn't be > better suited in experimental, but then again most of them have been > because of incorrect urls in the various package searchers, so perhaps > not. Do you have any thoughts? Its the usual post-accept bug flood, nothing to worry about IMO. It might be a good idea to allow some kind of config file to override the URLs/regexes, this would be useful for when the external websites change and the package has not been updated yet. Could you suggest this upstream? I'd like to wait a few more days before uploading - see how many more bugs testers can shake out. If there are no more changes by Sunday, I'll upload then. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: whohas (bug fixes)
Hi Paul On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:51:26AM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: > It might be a good idea to allow some kind of config file to override > the URLs/regexes, this would be useful for when the external websites > change and the package has not been updated yet. Could you suggest > this upstream? Yes, it had already occurred to me and I'll suggest it to Philipp upstream. > I'd like to wait a few more days before uploading - see how many more > bugs testers can shake out. If there are no more changes by Sunday, > I'll upload then. I've added another patch to the version on m.d.n under the same number, but thankfully it's been much quieter the last few days :-) Cheers Jonathan -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 Sending of encrypted mail is encouraged signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas (bug fixes)
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:51:26AM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: >> It might be a good idea to allow some kind of config file to override >> the URLs/regexes, this would be useful for when the external websites >> change and the package has not been updated yet. Could you suggest >> this upstream? > > Yes, it had already occurred to me and I'll suggest it to Philipp > upstream. Another longer-term idea would be to invent an XMLRPC/SOAP/JSON/etc API for enumerating and searching package lists and convince each distro to add that to their package information servers. >> I'd like to wait a few more days before uploading - see how many more >> bugs testers can shake out. If there are no more changes by Sunday, >> I'll upload then. > > I've added another patch to the version on m.d.n under the same number, > but thankfully it's been much quieter the last few days :-) Uploaded, thanks. Also, please ask upstream to remove the .DS_Store file from the tarball. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > I have uploaded whohas 0.22-1 to m.d.n, which is a new upstream > integrating a lot of the bugs, and some tweaks to the packaging because > of his changes. ... > I've also included a NEWS file detailing the patches > that are still active. I don't think that is an appropriate use of NEWS.Debian, documenting them in the patch headers should be enough. You might want to check policy/devref about this though. Some other things: You install intro.html but not the css/images in html_assets/. Might want to ask upstream to fix install.sh a bit so you can use it: support something like automake/autoconf's --prefix and DESTDIR. install the html and intro where a command-line parameter says. fix it to make /usr/local the default prefix since /usr is for system packages You don't specify which version of the GPL the packaging is under. Listing all the distros supported may not be a good idea because this will change over time and thus add work for those translating Debian package descriptions. Please add some debtags: http://debtags.alioth.debian.org/edit.html?pkg=whohas Please also add a screenshot of 0.22-1 (make sure to put in the right version): http://screenshots.debian.net/guidelines http://screenshots.debian.net/upload -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
Hi Jonathan, On Thu, January 8, 2009 07:26, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire > wrote: >> I have uploaded whohas 0.22-1 to m.d.n, which is a new upstream >> integrating a lot of the bugs, and some tweaks to the packaging because >> of his changes. Great. As I think this can be very useful to Debian developers, I have added a news item to the DeveloperNews queue, which will be posted to debian-devel-annnounce sometime in the near future: http://wiki.debian.org/DeveloperNews Feel free to update/change it. >> I've also included a NEWS file detailing the patches >> that are still active. > > I don't think that is an appropriate use of NEWS.Debian, documenting > them in the patch headers should be enough. Agreed; NEWS.Debian is for changes to the package that are relevant to end users. This information is indeed most appropriate in the individual patch headers. > Listing all the distros supported may not be a good idea because this > will change over time and thus add work for those translating Debian > package descriptions. I think that's actually rather informative as it gives a good overview of the breadth of the package and what kind of distributions it searches. It's not critical that the list is exactly up to date, so I don't think it would be a problem if some translations were to get a little behind on the most recent version. So I would leave it in. cheers, Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 11:00:23AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > Great. As I think this can be very useful to Debian developers, I have > added a news item to the DeveloperNews queue, which will be posted to > debian-devel-annnounce sometime in the near future: > http://wiki.debian.org/DeveloperNews > Feel free to update/change it. Good idea, thanks. Should it mention that whohas is still <1.0 and being heavily developed though? Or is the BTS mention enough? -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 Sending of encrypted mail is encouraged signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:26:45PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: > > I've also included a NEWS file detailing the patches > > that are still active. > > I don't think that is an appropriate use of NEWS.Debian, documenting > them in the patch headers should be enough. You might want to check > policy/devref about this though. I searched through policy and couldn't find mention of how to handle this situation, where the user should care about Debian-specific patches because they change the application's behaviour. Pretty trivially in this case, but I still think it's important to be able to find this information without needing to get the package source and understand how it goes together. Devref mentions NEWS.Debian as a changelog supplement: "This is the preferred means to let the user know [...] changes in a package" [1]. I didn't use README.Debian as the same paragraph seems to discourage this, but if you think it would be better I will change it. Clarification of these files would be appreciated :-) [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-news-debian > Some other things: > > You install intro.html but not the css/images in html_assets/. Yes, you caught me. Fixed. > Might want to ask upstream to fix install.sh a bit so you can use it: I had thought about this after uploading, I think I will suggest a makefile with an install target which will be good practice for me too. > You don't specify which version of the GPL the packaging is under. Fixed (has some guidance on this changed since last time? if so I missed it, sorry). > Listing all the distros supported may not be a good idea because this > will change over time and thus add work for those translating Debian > package descriptions. With my user's hat on again, I'd really like to know what it supports while looking at the package prospectively, but I agree I don't know how often the list might change. Can you suggest a better place (I thought maybe README|NEWS.Debian), or would it be sufficient to just make it clear that this list might be slightly out of date? > Please add some debtags: > Please also add a screenshot of 0.22-1 (make sure to put in the right version) Will do. -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 Sending of encrypted mail is encouraged signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:26:45PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: >> > I've also included a NEWS file detailing the patches >> > that are still active. >> >> I don't think that is an appropriate use of NEWS.Debian, documenting >> them in the patch headers should be enough. You might want to check >> policy/devref about this though. > > I searched through policy and couldn't find mention of how to handle > this situation, where the user should care about Debian-specific patches > because they change the application's behaviour. Pretty trivially in > this case, but I still think it's important to be able to find this > information without needing to get the package source and understand > how it goes together. > > Devref mentions NEWS.Debian as a changelog supplement: "This is the > preferred means to let the user know [...] changes in a package" [1]. I > didn't use README.Debian as the same paragraph seems to discourage this, > but if you think it would be better I will change it. > > Clarification of these files would be appreciated :-) > > [1] > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-news-debian I interpret that as being the changes since earlier versions of the package, rather than changes to the upstream source code. >> You don't specify which version of the GPL the packaging is under. > > Fixed (has some guidance on this changed since last time? if so I missed > it, sorry). Nope, I probably just missed it last time. >> Listing all the distros supported may not be a good idea because this >> will change over time and thus add work for those translating Debian >> package descriptions. > > With my user's hat on again, I'd really like to know what it supports > while looking at the package prospectively, but I agree I don't know how > often the list might change. > > Can you suggest a better place (I thought maybe README|NEWS.Debian), or would > it be sufficient to just make it clear that this list might be slightly > out of date? After reading thijs' response I conceed the importance of the distro list is higher than very slightly more work for translators. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:37:52PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: > > I interpret that as being the changes since earlier versions of the > package, rather than changes to the upstream source code. Ok, if you think README.Debian is acceptable I will move the notes to there. Would you like a version bump when I upload? -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 Sending of encrypted mail is encouraged signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:37:52PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: >> >> I interpret that as being the changes since earlier versions of the >> package, rather than changes to the upstream source code. > > Ok, if you think README.Debian is acceptable I will move the notes to > there. If you want to put them there, that'd be fine. Personally I don't see the need for that though. > Would you like a version bump when I upload? Either is fine, slight leaning towards no need for a bump (so I don't have to remember to use debuild -v...). -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Thu, January 8, 2009 11:19, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Devref mentions NEWS.Debian as a changelog supplement: "This is the > preferred means to let the user know [...] changes in a package" [1]. I > didn't use README.Debian as the same paragraph seems to discourage this, > but if you think it would be better I will change it. > > Clarification of these files would be appreciated :-) An important distinction of NEWS.Debian is that it is shown to users on package upgrade. I think we should use this sparingly as to not devaluate the use of this functionality. Nearly every Debian package has patches relative to upstream, it is good that they are documented for those actively looking for it. README.Debian is in that sense also acceptable. On Thu, January 8, 2009 11:21, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > http://wiki.debian.org/DeveloperNews > > Feel free to update/change it. > Good idea, thanks. Should it mention that whohas is still <1.0 and being > heavily developed though? Or is the BTS mention enough? I think that's not quite important - developers are not afraid of such software and keeping the text short means more people read it :-) Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:52:37PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: > Either is fine, slight leaning towards no need for a bump (so I don't > have to remember to use debuild -v...). NP, uploaded to the same location. -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 Sending of encrypted mail is encouraged signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:52:37PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: >> Either is fine, slight leaning towards no need for a bump (so I don't >> have to remember to use debuild -v...). > > NP, uploaded to the same location. I'd appreciate if someone else could sponsor this for now; my internets are slow ATM. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Friday 09 January 2009 07:38:48 Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire > > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 07:52:37PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: > >> Either is fine, slight leaning towards no need for a bump (so I don't > >> have to remember to use debuild -v...). > > > > NP, uploaded to the same location. > > I'd appreciate if someone else could sponsor this for now; my > internets are slow ATM. whohas 0.22-1 uploaded. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:33AM +0200, George Danchev wrote: > > I'd appreciate if someone else could sponsor this for now; my > > internets are slow ATM. > > whohas 0.22-1 uploaded. Cheers! Jonathan -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: whohas (new upstream)
On Friday 09 January 2009 10:13:26 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:33AM +0200, George Danchev wrote: > > > I'd appreciate if someone else could sponsor this for now; my > > > internets are slow ATM. > > > > whohas 0.22-1 uploaded. > > Cheers! Jonathan, I forgot to add that it is worth to discuss with upstream to split that lengthy script in several pieces, broken up on a per-distro basis, because as more and more distros are being added it will shortly become insane to maintain or to look at. Just an idea, you might be interested in. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[uploaded] Re: RFS: whohas (bugfix)
On Monday 26 January 2009 20:55:09 Raphael Geissert wrote: > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/whohas/whohas_0.22-2.dsc > > Why do you think the information in README.Debian is relevant to anyone > installing the package? > > Also, some typos in README.Debian: > Intrebid > wih > upsream Sure, that particular README.Debian is somehow superfluous here (and could be removed in the next release, Jonathan: hint, hint, but no rush or you will need some jumbo sponsors ;-), since it duplicates descriptions given in the patches' headers. Debian.source (to be refered for package-specific practices when someone intends to NMU your package) and REAME.Debian-source (dfsg repackaged source) are not relevant also. I also had a look at 10-debian-versions-511364.dpatch and 15-honour-proxy-512902.dpatch which are fine. Thanks. Uploaded. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [uploaded] Re: RFS: whohas (bugfix)
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:04:58PM +0200, George Danchev wrote: > > Why do you think the information in README.Debian is relevant to anyone > > installing the package? > > > > Also, some typos in README.Debian: > > Intrebid > > wih > > upsream > > Sure, that particular README.Debian is somehow superfluous here (and could be > removed in the next release, Jonathan: hint, hint, but no rush or you will > need some jumbo sponsors ;-), since it duplicates descriptions given in the > patches' headers. Debian.source (to be refered for package-specific practices > when someone intends to NMU your package) and REAME.Debian-source (dfsg > repackaged source) are not relevant also. I lobbied hard for keeping README.Debian in last time but I can see my inexperience showing again :-) On review you are right, it duplicates the patch headers - my aim was to keep the user informed, who will never see them, but there isn't any real need. Taking it out will also fix the typos elegantly ;-) but no, it's not worth another upload, so it can wait until next time. > I also had a look at 10-debian-versions-511364.dpatch and > 15-honour-proxy-512902.dpatch which are fine. Thanks. Uploaded. Great, thanks! -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [uploaded] Re: RFS: whohas (bugfix)
On Monday 26 January 2009 22:24:12 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: --cut-- > > Sure, that particular README.Debian is somehow superfluous here (and > > could be removed in the next release, Jonathan: hint, hint, but no rush > > or you will need some jumbo sponsors ;-), since it duplicates > > descriptions given in the patches' headers. Debian.source (to be refered To correct my errors first: `Debian.source' to be read as `debian/README.source' > > for package-specific practices when someone intends to NMU your package) > > and REAME.Debian-source (dfsg repackaged source) are not relevant also. > > I lobbied hard for keeping README.Debian in last time but I can see my > inexperience showing again :-) Nothing spectacular: /usr/share/doc/developers-reference/developers-reference.txt.gz > On review you are right, it duplicates > the patch headers - my aim was to keep the user informed, who will never > see them, but there isn't any real need. Having dups could be tiresome for anyone, discrepancies happen... OTOH dropping a patch would take its description out as well. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
