On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 10:46:51 +0200 Xavier MAILLARD <x...@gnu.org> wrote:
> The package was already in Debian till 2006 then it got dropped (no > reason given). The reasons are accessible via the PTS: http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/records.html [2008-12-04] Removed 1.4.9-4.1 from unstable (Thomas Viehmann) http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/records/news/20081204T190628Z.html which refers to bug 507598: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=507598 Please see the following reasons for the removal request: * Package is out of date. * Upstream appears inactive since 2003. * Low popcon (< 100). * Package is orphaned. (Orphaned in Dec 2007). * Package is buggy. Packages are not removed from Debian without reason. > 1.5.2 is planned for today and will include a debian/ directory with > updated control/changelog/rule files. For the future release, I plan > to keep the debian/ directory up-to-date with debian. That is generally considered as a very bad idea. The upstream release should *NOT* include a debian/ directory - by all means keep the debian/ directory in the same VCS but it should not be in the upstream tarball. The package needs a maintainer in Debian and it is the Debian maintainer who prepares, maintains and updates all files in the debian/ directory, not upstream. Even if upstream and the maintainer are the same person, the debian/ directory needs to be separate from the upstream package. There should be no reason why a new debian revision would need a new upstream release every single time. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
pgp2zSIit5kwN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
