Frank Küster wrote: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Why is it better than to drop aleph? If a package is way outdated, and >> RC buggy, and also aleph is practically unchanged since Sarge, I think >> that is still grounds for a removal. > > I haven't investigated about aleph. I just thought that, since it > doesn't have many bugs, even the current version might be useful, and > better than nothing. > > If Thomas packages afnix (together with Paul or separately), that's > probably the best choice. From a technical point of view, the package > names could also stay the same, so that we don't need to wait for NEW > processing (but you RMs might have a magic wand to speed up that?) > > Regards, Frank
It is probably worth pointing out that AFNIX isn't just Aleph with a new name - the language and system has moved on considerably since the final Aleph release in 2003 (see http://www.afnix.org/htm/desc.htm). So I would not expect the upstream author to be too happy with a Debian version of AFNIX called Aleph, or vice-versa. I'm very new to Debian packaging and it's likely to take me a lot longer to package AFNIX than an experienced developer (and the chances of errors in my packaging is a lot higher). So if you need an AFNIX package quickly I would be more than happy to stand aside and let an experienced developer at it - you are welcome to use my work on it so far, or start from scratch at your discretion. Having said that, I do not think it is sensible to regard AFNIX as a new upstream version of Aleph - it is more like a totally new package as so much of the build system and runtime are different. Would it be wise to rush it into Etch (even with a competent developer packaging it!) Just for background information, I chose to package AFNIX partly because I wanted to take my time and learn more about packaging non-trivial systems - no-one would be in any rush for the AFNIX package, would they? Just shows how wrong I can be.... Let me know what you think. Thanks, Paul
