On Tue 2008-05-20 14:28:18 -0400, Decklin Foster wrote: > (Gotta love that rules file...)
Amen!
> How do you plan on managing patches, and the packaging in general? I
> could help with this particular issue, but it'd be more convenient
> if your SVN repo looked like a standard svn-buildpackage layout
> (with upstream on a branch).
I'll have to look into the svn-buildpackage layout: i'm not familiar
with it, but it sounds like a fine idea.
i was actually planning on just submitting my patches for cleaning up
warnings upstream and *not* including them in the debian packages at
the moment. i'm a little gun-shy about patching for the sake of
quieting warnings without upstream's approval given the events of the
last couple weeks ;)
In the event that i find patches that actually do need to be applied,
i'll probably use dpatch or quilt to manage them. I don't have much
of a preference (well, other than avoiding patches to upstream
entirely).
FWIW, i'm down to only 4 errors (all "different width due to
prototype") using the warning flags Jörg suggested, so i'm relatively
close to a "cleanup" patch i can send upstream.
> Have you asked upstream if they plan to do a real version number? My
> personal preference is to do something ugly like 0~20071230 now rather
> than be stuck with 1:1.0 and so on later. (This is opinion, you can
> ignore it :))
My impression from Jordan (which could be wrong) is that this *is* the
real version number -- i don't think there's going to be a "1.0". So
i think i'll ignore it for now. Adding an epoch number isn't the end
of the world if the versioning scheme does change.
Thanks for your feedback,
--dkg
pgpRkMciGYc11.pgp
Description: PGP signature
