Re: RFS: Need a sponsor for my konversation package
Nathaniel W Turner writes: > On Tuesday 06 April 2004 01:14 pm, Achim Bohnet wrote: >> Maybe you can write a small paragraph for inclusion in Packages.txt >> about CDBS replacement of the dh_make rules file? > I'm not sure there would be much to write. =) Your basic > debian/rules file becomes: > #!/usr/bin/make -f > include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk include > /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/kde.mk > With line 2 (debhelper.mk) being optional, but usually desired. Can you write this in unified diff format, please ? :) > Learning how to hook into various parts of the build process could > probably use some better documentation, though... That's OT for the Packaging.txt file. Just include a pointer to the relevant CDBS docs. cheers domi
Re: RFS: Need a sponsor for my konversation package
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 01:14 pm, Achim Bohnet wrote: > Maybe you can write a small paragraph for inclusion in Packages.txt > about CDBS replacement of the dh_make rules file? I'm not sure there would be much to write. =) Your basic debian/rules file becomes: #!/usr/bin/make -f include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/kde.mk With line 2 (debhelper.mk) being optional, but usually desired. Learning how to hook into various parts of the build process could probably use some better documentation, though... Cheers, nate -- Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Re: RFS: Need a sponsor for my konversation package
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 11:25:54AM -0400, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote: > On Tuesday 06 April 2004 11:05 am, Dominique Devriese wrote: > > Hm, I think this is a bit exaggerated for a small package like > > konversation. > Ok, cool. That's fine with me. =) > Cheers, > nate > ...who still needs a sponsor I can still upload new konversation packages, even if the maintainer has changed in between. -- Riku Voipio| riku.voipio at iki.fi | kirkkonummentie 33 |+358 44 5000343 --+-- 02140 Espoo| | dark> A bad analogy is like leaky screwdriver |
Re: RFS: Need a sponsor for my konversation package
Achim Bohnet writes: > On Tuesday 06 April 2004 17:05, Dominique Devriese wrote: [...] >> > and AFAICT, the kde.mk class in cdbs contains more up-to-date >> > best-packaging-practices. > Hi Nathaniel > Maybe you can write a small paragraph for inclusion in Packages.txt > about CDBS replacement of the dh_make rules file? Regarding the CDBS class, Calc ( he's the author of kde.mk ) told me that there was a problem with CDBS not allowing stamps to be used ( or sth like that ), and that therefore he didn't switch to it. cheers domi
Re: RFS: Need a sponsor for my konversation package
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 17:05, Dominique Devriese wrote: [...] > > and AFAICT, the kde.mk class in cdbs contains more up-to-date > > best-packaging-practices. Hi Nathaniel Maybe you can write a small paragraph for inclusion in Packages.txt about CDBS replacement of the dh_make rules file? > > Oh, I see, I didn't notice that you were using CDBS... Never mind > then :) Achim -- To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated. You discover truth everytime you use it. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: Need a sponsor for my konversation package
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 11:05 am, Dominique Devriese wrote: > > I propose we merge the packages and consider a joint maintainership. > > Hm, I think this is a bit exaggerated for a small package like > konversation. And you have also put much more work in your package > already than I have in mine, so I'd really prefer if you'd do it. > That way, I'd also have more time to spend on kdebindings, and some > other projects of mine. Anyway, thanks for the offer :) Ok, cool. That's fine with me. =) Cheers, nate ...who still needs a sponsor -- Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Re: RFS: Need a sponsor for my konversation package
Nathaniel W Turner writes: > Hi Domi, I'm glad to see konversation getting uploaded! It looks > like we've both put some work into packaging this app, and this can > only be a good thing. Ack. > I propose we merge the packages and consider a joint maintainership. > Even though it's a relatively small package (compared to say, emacs > or kdebase), it never hurts to have have extra hands and eyeballs, > and it'd be less likely that we'd both be on vacation, for example. > =) Hm, I think this is a bit exaggerated for a small package like konversation. And you have also put much more work in your package already than I have in mine, so I'd really prefer if you'd do it. That way, I'd also have more time to spend on kdebindings, and some other projects of mine. Anyway, thanks for the offer :) >> * Maybe we could discuss some of the differences between the two >> packages: > Yes, let's. =) Btw, where can I find your source package? It > doesn't look like it's hit incoming yet. Yeah, the ftpmasters still need to approve it. You can find the package at: http://www.wina.be/~domi/konversation >> + the manpage: I used a manpage as generated with the kdemangen.pl >> from kdesdk/scripts ( with some manual tuning ), and as such, it >> documents far more options of the program than yours ( I suppose >> it's hand-written ). Not sure which is better though. > I like your approach here. Writing my manpage by hand in DocBook > XML was a fun learning experience, but I have no sentimental > attachment to it. =) We should probably use yours. k >> + the rules file: I think you should read >> /usr/share/kdelibs4-dev/Packaging.txt about some general things to >> remember when packaging kde apps. Most importantly, the >> debianrules and the menu files stuff is pretty important > I did read this document, and have been meaning to make a .menu file > for awhile, but keep forgetting. You can just copy mine then, of course. > As for debian/rules, the dh-make template in kdelibs4-dev seemed > outdated to me (it uses DH_COMPAT=3, for example), True, we're working on that in another thread :) > and AFAICT, the kde.mk class in cdbs contains more up-to-date > best-packaging-practices. Oh, I see, I didn't notice that you were using CDBS... Never mind then :) >> domi ( who goes to file an ITP bug on kdebindings immediately... ) > Oh, nice. I can't wait to test this out -- I've been missing this > for a while. Let me know if you want a place to host test packages > or subversion access or anything like that. No, thanks, I have access to some good servers, so I'll be fine :) Thanks for the offer though. cheers domi
Re: RFS: Need a sponsor for my konversation package
Hi Domi, I'm glad to see konversation getting uploaded! It looks like we've both put some work into packaging this app, and this can only be a good thing. I propose we merge the packages and consider a joint maintainership. Even though it's a relatively small package (compared to say, emacs or kdebase), it never hurts to have have extra hands and eyeballs, and it'd be less likely that we'd both be on vacation, for example. =) If you're interested in this approach, let me know, and we can work out the technical details (I could give you an account in my svn repository and we could maintain the packaging there, for example.) On Tuesday 06 April 2004 05:34 am, Dominique Devriese wrote: > So, as for resolving this: > > * I agree with you taking over the konversation package, since I'm at > fault here, and you seem to know the program better ( I use irssi > for irc ;) ) Ok, but I'd love to have you as a co-maintainer if you find the idea agreeable. > * Maybe we could discuss some of the differences between the two > packages: Yes, let's. =) Btw, where can I find your source package? It doesn't look like it's hit incoming yet. I'll comment as best I can without having seen your package, for now. > + the manpage: I used a manpage as generated with the kdemangen.pl > from kdesdk/scripts ( with some manual tuning ), and as such, it > documents far more options of the program than yours ( I suppose > it's hand-written ). Not sure which is better though. I like your approach here. Writing my manpage by hand in DocBook XML was a fun learning experience, but I have no sentimental attachment to it. =) We should probably use yours. > + the rules file: I think you should read > /usr/share/kdelibs4-dev/Packaging.txt about some general things to > remember when packaging kde apps. Most importantly, the > debianrules and the menu files stuff is pretty important I did read this document, and have been meaning to make a .menu file for awhile, but keep forgetting. As for debian/rules, the dh-make template in kdelibs4-dev seemed outdated to me (it uses DH_COMPAT=3, for example), and AFAICT, the kde.mk class in cdbs contains more up-to-date best-packaging-practices. But I could be missing something essential here. > + there is a .menu file present in my package. Awesome. =) > + otherwise, your package is identical or better, imho, so nice work Thank you. =) I'm sure your package is very well done, and can't wait to take a look at it. > Anyway, I'm sorry about this, I hope we can work this out... No problem. Thank you for being so cool about it. I think the end result will be a better-maintained package, from which everyone will benefit. =) > domi ( who goes to file an ITP bug on kdebindings immediately... ) Oh, nice. I can't wait to test this out -- I've been missing this for a while. Let me know if you want a place to host test packages or subversion access or anything like that. Cheers, nate -- Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Re: RFS: Need a sponsor for my konversation package
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 11.34, Dominique Devriese wrote: > Nathaniel W Turner writes: > > The ITP is here: > >>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=222154 > > Ok, I'm completely at fault here. Some time ago, I was looking for a > simple KDE program to package, and my eye fell on konversation. I > can't believe I missed your ITP ( I may have looked before it was > filed ). Anyway, Riku just sponsored my package in unstable > yesterday. In that case you could package kmplayer or kdar :) Though I have not seached for ITPs. Or help kradio and ksubtile authors to improve their already existing debian packages for inclusion in the debian archive. I'm currently packaging kdetv, but that needs some more work before it could be included in debian. And I have yet to read Packaging.txt :) I have uploaded it to the apt repository of mentors.debian.net. I'm not against anybody else packaging it, I just don't like to install packages to /usr/local. Regards, Zsolt
Re: RFS: Need a sponsor for my konversation package
Nathaniel W Turner writes: > I'd like to upload konversation pretty soon. Matthew Palmer offered > back in December to do uploads, but I think he has become too busy, > as I have received no response to my latest email. > So, if someone here is willing to do a few uploads of this package, > please let me know. The packages that I plan to upload are at this > repository: > deb http://debian.houseofnate.net/ unstable nwt deb-src > http://debian.houseofnate.net/ unstable nwt > The debian dir is in svn, browsable here: >>> http://svn.houseofnate.net/pkg-konversation/trunk/debian/ > The ITP is here: >>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=222154 Ok, I'm completely at fault here. Some time ago, I was looking for a simple KDE program to package, and my eye fell on konversation. I can't believe I missed your ITP ( I may have looked before it was filed ). Anyway, Riku just sponsored my package in unstable yesterday. So, as for resolving this: * I agree with you taking over the konversation package, since I'm at fault here, and you seem to know the program better ( I use irssi for irc ;) ) * Maybe we could discuss some of the differences between the two packages: + the manpage: I used a manpage as generated with the kdemangen.pl from kdesdk/scripts ( with some manual tuning ), and as such, it documents far more options of the program than yours ( I suppose it's hand-written ). Not sure which is better though. + the rules file: I think you should read /usr/share/kdelibs4-dev/Packaging.txt about some general things to remember when packaging kde apps. Most importantly, the debianrules and the menu files stuff is pretty important + there is a .menu file present in my package. + otherwise, your package is identical or better, imho, so nice work :) Anyway, I'm sorry about this, I hope we can work this out... cheers domi ( who goes to file an ITP bug on kdebindings immediately... )
