Hi Goswin, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Benoît Knecht <benoit.kne...@fsfe.org> writes: > > Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libaio-ocaml" > >> > >> * Package name : libaio-ocaml > >> Version : 1.0~rc1 > >> Upstream Author : Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-...@web.de> > >> * URL : http://forge.ocamlcore.org/projects/libaio-ocaml/ > >> Vcs-Git : > >> git://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/libaio-ocaml.git > >> Vcs-Browser : > >> http://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/libaio-ocaml.git > > > > Vcs-Browser should link to something browsable, like a gitweb or > > something, if it exists. > > Oh, I copied that from the browsable webpage itself not realizing that > it was a raw view. Fixed. Going to upload 1.0~rc2 after this mail. > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/libaio-ocaml.git > > >> * License : LGPL-2.1+ and link execpetion > >> Section : ocaml > >> > >> It builds those binary packages: > >> > >> libaio-ocaml - OCaml bindings for libaio (Linux kernel AIO access library) > >> libaio-ocaml-dev - OCaml bindings for libaio (Linux kernel AIO access > >> library) > > > > You should open an ITP bug and close it in the debian/changelog [1]. > > Given that I am upstream, currently the only user of it and the package > is hosted in the ocaml maintainers git I do not think there is a risk of > anyone else packaging this as well. Didn't feel like writing an ITP just > to raise the ITP count from 1120 to 1121 for a few days when the > packaging is done and just pending cosmetic changes. > > But if that is stopping sponsorship I can certainly write one.
Yes, I think you definitely should. Avoiding duplication of efforts isn't the only benefit of ITP bugs; see [2] for a list of reasons. > >> To access further information about this package, please visit the > >> following URL: > >> > >> http://mentors.debian.net/package/libaio-ocaml > > > > This page shows a few issues already that you should also fix: no watch > > file, duplicate short description, and no debian version (i.e. package > > is native). > > I've already fixed the duplicate short description in git, the only info > I consider valid problem there. > > The package is native because I am both maintainer and upstream > author. Does a watch file make sense for a native package? That's not what native means. See the third point of [3]. > I've tried for a while to maintain the package with split upstream and > debian git repositories but it just causes so much extra work for no > real benefit. Every upstream change needs to be commited, pulled to the > upstream branch of the debian git, merged into master, build, test, > repeat. Besides being extra work for nothing it also seriously disrupts > my workflow and prevents the use of for example "git commit --amend". > You can no longer just play with the source till it works and then > commit in an orderly fashion. I don't see why it would prevent you from using "git commit --amend" (although you should never use it once you've pushed to a public repository anyway). In fact, you can make a non-native package even if you only have the one git repository; you just need to make sure your .orig.tar.gz tarball doesn't contain the debian/ directory. See [4]. [1] http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#newpackage [3] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#What_is_the_difference_between_a_native_Debian_package_and_a_non-native_package.3F [4] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#What.27s_wrong_with_upstream_shipping_a_debian.2BAC8_directory.3F Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120306081753.ga30...@marvin.lan
