Hi Luca! On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 20:36, Luca Capello <l...@pca.it> wrote: > Hi Desmond! > > On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 02:57 +0800, Desmond O. Chang wrote: >> >> Actually, 1.0 has been not recommended. We have to use many options >> or conffiles to maintain 1.0 packages. If it is upgraded to 3.0, we >> can use a single 'pdebuild' without any options. In all the packaging >> methods that I've known so far, it's the simplest. > > Well, I can assure you that changing a well-known workflow is much more > difficult than understanding source-format-3.0 ;-) > > And BTW, 1.0 is still a valid package format, I know of the different > tries at pushing 3.0 as the *default* one, which I do not agree to, but > this is another story.
I hope git-buildpackage works with 3.0 format perfectly. I just want my packaging work as simple as possible. Sorry. > Uploaded to the Debian archive. As I already wrote, no need to upload > your package to mentors and ask there for sponsorship: do so if I have > not replied for one week or so, not when I am responsive ;-) > > And as I also wrote, we should push as much as we can git-buildpackage > as the official tool for at least StumpWM, which means that there is no > need to provide a full Debian package. Thanks for uploading. I'm sorry that I forgot your advice. Next time I'll ask someone on the list to build it first. > > BTW1, the Debian Git repository misses the debian tag for the last (and > just uploaded) version. I've pushed it. > > BTW2, please have a look at pristine-tar, we should import in the Debian > Git repository all the previous .orig.tar.gz in a pristine-tar branch, > so there will no need anymore for any .orig.tar.gz! Is it necessary for stumpwm? Since we pull the upstream repo directly. 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
