Hello Bas, Thanks a lot for sponsoring OTB package!. I had comment on bug tracker [1] which says splitting of shared libraries is not good for OTB. In OTB the version of all .so from source package changes altogether and it should be put in a single package.
Should I go back to single libotb and libotb-dev ? I thought it might be easier for other projects to have separated packages. But comments from [1] says that each minor release of package must result in all libotb* packages to pass through the NEW queue. Any thoughts ? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=809312#15 On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Rashad Kanavath < [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 24-12-15 21:37, Rashad Kanavath wrote: >> >> The ITP already exists (#764860) courtesy of Andreas, and is closed in >> >> the changelog. >> > >> > Okay. I can add a comment there to restart the process ? >> >> Adding a comment to mention that OTB packaging is mostly ready is good, >> but there is no need to restart the process. The upload of the otb >> package will finalize the process. >> >> New packages should always have an associated ITP bugreport, if there is >> no ITP yet, but there is a RFP bugreport you can claim it by retitling >> the bugreport to an ITP and setting yourself as the owner. If there is >> neither, a bugreport should be filed. If you aren't sure that you want >> to maintain the package yourself, file and RFP. If you do, and ITP is >> appropriate. Filing an RFP won't make a volunteer appear to maintain it, >> so you should expect much to happen after filing a RFP bugreport. >> > > That is even better. I send a mail to retitle and change owner for #764860. > > >> See also: https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Bas >> >> -- >> GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 >> Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Rashad > -- Regards, Rashad
