Hi Raphael!
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 03:22 -0400, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Robert James Clay wrote:
> > But would they accept it? I do want to get it into Debian unstable &
> > then testing before the freeze, but besides that new versions are coming
> > out fairly often (currently every couple of weeks or so) there is also
> > the matter of that embedded copy of the Scriptaculous Javascript
> > Library. Would they accept a new package with that still in it?
> > (That's one reason I've been setting the changelog for experimental
> > instead of the unstable distribution.) ....
> The package goes through NEW only once, for experimental and for unstable.
Would that mean that the ITP bug would also be closeable if it were
uploaded to experimental at first instead of unstable? (Not that I
necessarily think it needs to go that way now...)
> So uploading to experimental doesn't change much.
While it might be useful for when working on not using that embedded
library, I no longer think the current package itself necessarily needs
to start off by being uploaded to experimental instead of unstable. The
package configuration using debconf/dbconfig-common isn't working the
way I want it to (initially I just want it to enable setting the
ledgersmb role and password properly) but that's why it's not enabled by
default. (There's a note about that in Debian/NEWS.)
I currently have several LXC systems (wheezy & now squeeze; I needed
more local testing, including for new installs, so I created several of
them) that I'm using for testing LedgerSMB and once it is configured
(ledgersmb DB role created, Pg contrib_dir setting configured, apache
config updated if necessary) it is usable. Different company databases
can be created, I can log in to those companies, add users, make changes
to the user access... Update installs of the package work from my local
package repository.
> As long as you document the reason why you have kept the copy, they
> should have no problem with it.
Well, do you think that "not yet tested with the Debian package
versions" is sufficient reason?
> You can also blindly replace it and hope for the best.
More testing than what I can do by myself is certainly what I want
to see, but "blindly" replacing it isn't the way I'd want to go...<g>
> Unstable is also here so that people can test :-)
And that's certainly what the package needs more of.<g> What do you
think of the idea of uploading the LedgerSMB package to unstable now?
Jame
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1334920127.17195.56.camel@svrpc
