Hi Luca! On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:13, Luca Capello <l...@pca.it> wrote: > > Sure, I would have liked to orphan it a *long* time ago (I switched back > to Ratpoison after +/- 5 years with StumpWM), but as usual I got busied > with Real Life issues. > > Please note that at some point last year Ramkumar Ramachandra (Cc:ed) > also showed interest in the StumpWM Debian package, you may want to > coordinate with him any future upload.
Ramkumar Ramachandra has dropped stumpwm. I will adopt it. > >> > Some "problems": > >> > 2) I am not so familiar with source-format-3.0, but AFAIK you must not >> > depend on quilt anymore, if you do not specifically use quilt in >> > debian/rules. Which means that every quilt usage except >> > applying/removing patches in debian/rules is useless, but *again* I am >> > not familiar with source-format-3.0... >> >> I haven't touched debian/rules, so it still depends on quilt. > > Mmm, I fail to get why in such case you still want to build-depend on > quilt. If we use quilt for simple-patch management, then > source-format-3.0(quilt) already manages that, without any extra > build-dependency except "dpkg (>= 1.15.5.4)". Please note that having > less build-dependency is a good thing, because, for example, the buildds > (and others, e.g. pbuilder) need less packages to be installed. > > At the same time, if you switch to source-format-3.0(quilt), you also > need to remove debian/README.source and document each patch as for > DEP-3, please check <http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0>. > > BTW, these are not complaints, I actually want to understand why you > half-switched to source-format-3.0(quilt) ;-) Since I simply use 'pdebuild' without any options of pdebuild itself and dpkg (they are too long and complex), I have to change the source format to 3.0(quilt) so that dpkg-source will not put .git/* into the original tarball. My original purpose is that I plan to upgrade the patches in the next versions so that I can release a new version as soon as possible. > > Sure, while doing it directly from the Git repository I indirectly found > a problem with debcheckout <http://bugs.debian.org/592660> :-( > > Moreover, since I use git-buildpackage, I added to the repository a > minimal debian/gbp.conf, so git-buildpackage work by default without any > change (it can be also useful for automatic builds): > > http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-common-lisp/stumpwm.git;a=commitdiff;h=33aebb0412884323eede4849677a0dd361b8a809 > > Doing that, I set the distribution to "UNRELEASED" to avoid any faulty > upload to Debian (dput will wine if you try to upload a package with > that distribution) and also unfinalized the debian/changelog entry. > This last point is still controversial, given that there are different > workflows <http://bugs.debian.org/517973>. However, my point in this > being that I would prefer you to finalize the package. OK, It will be finalized after our discussing. > > Given the quality of your work on StumpWM (I have not checked the other > packages you maintain, sorry) and your responsiveness, reading the > Debian packaging documentation (Policy, Developer Reference & Co.) > should not be too difficult, right? Feel free to ask for any question > you have, a better list would be debian-mentors@, but if your questions > are Common Lisp-specific, this list is fine as well. > > Thank you for stepping in taking care of Common Lisp in Debian. I have read the social contract, DFSG and DMUP. Can I apply now? Thanks, Des _______________________________________________ pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list pkg-common-lisp-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-common-lisp-devel
