Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-06-03 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 01:16:26AM +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: > I uploaded the package, with a couple of changes: changed the FSF address in > debian/copyright to the latest, and removed dh_link from debian/rules (it was > not necessary). Please do include these changes in future revision

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-06-02 Thread Y Giridhar Appaji Nag
On 09/06/03 01:16 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag said ... > On 09/06/01 16:47 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones said ... > > > The new package is in the same place: > > > > http://www.annexia.org/tmp/debian/ > > I uploaded the package, with a couple of changes: changed the FSF address in > debian/copyrigh

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-06-02 Thread Y Giridhar Appaji Nag
On 09/06/01 16:47 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones said ... > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 01:26:32AM +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: [snip...] > > Suggestions: > > > > - It is usually a good idea to maintain the debian packaging also in a VCS. > > I'm of course maintaining this package in my own VCS.

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-06-01 Thread Daniel Moerner
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > 2009/6/1 Richard W.M. Jones : >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 01:26:32AM +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: >> [...] >>> Suggestions: >>> >>> - It is usually a good idea to maintain the debian packaging also in a VCS. >>>   Even though this pa

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-06-01 Thread Dmitrijs Ledkovs
2009/6/1 Richard W.M. Jones : > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 01:26:32AM +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: > [...] >> Suggestions: >> >> - It is usually a good idea to maintain the debian packaging also in a VCS. >>   Even though this package is simple, since you are also the upstream, I was >>   wonde

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-06-01 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 01:26:32AM +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: [...] Sorry for the late reply, hardware troubles. > Comments: > > - in debian/control, Section should be admin (not devel) and priority should > be optional (not extra). Done. > - debian/control: Remove ${shlibs:Depends}

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-05-28 Thread Y Giridhar Appaji Nag
On 09/05/28 17:17 -0700, Russ Allbery said ... > Y Giridhar Appaji Nag writes: > > > I am not sure if enforcing "extra" in cases other than conflicts, > > Depends: on lower priority and very clear specialised requirements > > (elinks-lite, debug symbols etc.) gains us much. > > Oh, yes, I agree.

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-05-28 Thread Russ Allbery
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag writes: > I agree with this particular example. But I could argue if would > "reasonbly want to install" Kerberos if I "Didn't know what it was". > > I've not seen ftp-master enforce the distinction between optional and > extra, not even in the cases where it is very clearl

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-05-28 Thread Y Giridhar Appaji Nag
On 09/05/27 13:41 -0700, Russ Allbery said ... > Y Giridhar Appaji Nag writes: > > > I read that part of policy (only likely to be useful if you already > > know what they are) as "there is an optional package that has been > > built out of the same source package, but this one is built for > > s

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-05-27 Thread Russ Allbery
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag writes: > I read that part of policy (only likely to be useful if you already > know what they are) as "there is an optional package that has been > built out of the same source package, but this one is built for > special needs of that package". My understanding was that t

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-05-27 Thread Y Giridhar Appaji Nag
On 09/05/27 13:02 -0700, Russ Allbery said ... > Y Giridhar Appaji Nag writes: > > > Comments: > > > > - in debian/control, Section should be admin (not devel) and priority should > > be optional (not extra). > > Hm, why would you increase the priority to optional? This seems like an > extra

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-05-27 Thread Russ Allbery
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag writes: > Comments: > > - in debian/control, Section should be admin (not devel) and priority should > be optional (not extra). Hm, why would you increase the priority to optional? This seems like an extra thing to me -- only people with specific needs who already knows

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-05-27 Thread Y Giridhar Appaji Nag
On 09/05/28 01:26 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag said ... > On 09/05/27 23:57 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag said ... > > > > On 09/05/27 11:03 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones said ... > > > > > Dear mentors, I'm looking for a sponsor for my package 'febootstrap'. > > > > > > > > > I will review the packag

Re: ITR: febootstrap

2009-05-27 Thread Y Giridhar Appaji Nag
On 09/05/27 23:57 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag said ... > > > On 09/05/27 11:03 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones said ... > > > > Dear mentors, I'm looking for a sponsor for my package 'febootstrap'. > > > > > > I will review the package and will send in comments (if any) / do an upload. Comments: - i

ITR: febootstrap [Was: Re: RFS: febootstrap]

2009-05-27 Thread Y Giridhar Appaji Nag
On 09/05/27 19:11 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones said ... > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 06:20:27PM +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: > > On 09/05/27 11:03 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones said ... > > > Dear mentors, I'm looking for a sponsor for my package 'febootstrap'. > > > > > Are there compelling reasons