Hi Andreas, On Wednesday 25 February 2009 16:08:59 you wrote: > Some (nitpicking!!) idea: Have you considered to move the > examples into a separate package. These are not really of > a size which should be separated I just want to know whether > you know about the option to separate architeture independant > files into a separate package exspecially of the package might > work without these files. If you confirm that you know this > option but decided against it intentionally because the examples > are a very impornat part of the package it is perfectly fine > for me.
I wasn't aware of that, but it seems to me to be a good suggestion. Especially, if the number of examples will grow in the future. So I've split the package into eprover and eprover-examples. > Regarding team maintenance: I've seen that you have patched > several files and did not used a patch system (like quilt or > dpatch). Doing so seems to make Git the better choice for > a Version Control System because we have the policy to not > commit the upstream source to SVN and use patches instead. > The Git workflow (which I'm not very comfortable with) seems > to relay on commiting the whole source and patch the files > accordingly. So the question is: Have you made up your mind > about commiting eprover to the Debian Science reporitory? > While this is not required to find a sponsor I would like > to recommend this once more. In this case you should add > Vcs-Git fields to debian/control. Just take a look at other > packages in the Vcs and also see how Maintainer and Uploaders > are handled there. Yes, I'd prefer to find a sponsor in Debian Science. This seems to be a much better option. I've applied already for membership in Debian Science and now I'm waiting for it to be processed. I studied a bit more Debian manuals and I used dpatch to trace my modifications to the original source. When doing so I also realized, that some of the original build scripts modified some source files in place. This is why the diff contained more files then actually needed. So I rewrote the makefiles a bit and it should be much better now. Best regards, Petr
