On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:15:46PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > Giuseppe Iuculano wrote: > >Michael Tokarev ha scritto: > >>I wrote to debian kvm package maintainer several times, I > >>submitted a bugreport against kvm long time ago, but never > >>heard back. > >> > >>So now I'm requesting a sponsor to upload my packages into > >>debian. > > > >You are trying to hijack kvm, this is not the way to do it appropriately. > > I'm trying to make it to work. > And to my shame, I don't know how to do that in another way. > I already support debian users by maintaining the package > out of debian. > > >Anyway your package is completely wrong, you only changed the source name, we > >can't have the same binary name for two different packages, or two identical > >packages with a different name. > > Well, saying it's completely wrong is not wise. It's not wrong. > > You named one reason why do you think it's wrong. Which is its > name. But this has its reasoning in upstream naming. > > As I described in my initial email, initially there were > development snapshots with naming scheme like kvm-$number. > It was nothing but development snapshots. First stable > release was named qemu-kvm-0.10.0, and it will follow this > naming scheme from now on. > > With this, there's no real need to package the development > snapshots anymore. So kvm-$number _source_ package should > go, and be replaced with qemu-kvm. Which is exactly what > my version does.
Except there is no such kvm-$number source package. The source package for kvm is kvm. > In short: the source naming scheme follows upstream. > Note again that as of lenny, there was _no_ single > stable release of kvm. > > As of with naming scheme of kvm _binary_ package, I left > it the way it was before, to avoid further confusion. > Which is enough already, due to the fact that kvm is > a patched version of qemu. And that is called highjacking. > kvm is a well-recognized _executable_ name for this > binary, and the fact that it comes from qemu-kvm source > is not an issue. > > Also I want to have easy upgrade path from kvm-$num > as in debian now to this qemu-kvm package. > > So I'm not quite sure what I missed. Except of the > "proper way" you mentioned above. Which I still don't > know -- the way I know is to contact the maintainer > and/or submit bugreports. I did both, starting about > half a year ago, but to no avail. You obviously missed how debian package maintenance works, which is something you should know as someone who applied to be DD. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
