2009/8/19 Peter Pentchev <[email protected]>: > I've had to do this with Perl modules once - I wanted to package > a particular module, but it had a chain of dependencies that were > not packaged yet. What I did was file a series of ITP bugs, > stating my intentions clearly - first for the "target" package, > saying "This module also needs So-And-So and This-And-That, which > will be ITP'd separately", and then for the dependencies, each ITP > stating "This module is needed for the packaging of So-And-So (ITP #NNN)". > A couple of days later, helpful people from the Debian Perl Group > did the last part that I'd missed - made the ITP bugs block one > another in the proper order. > > Thus, anyone who reads the library bug sees "it is needed for > ITP #NNN", and anyone who reads the original ITP bug sees "blocked > by #NNN" and knows why it hasn't been RFS'd yet.
For those who are filing lots of ITPs like this, a reminder of the devref recommendations about new packages: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/08/msg00301.html -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
