> as HE pointed out, if we indeed enter [EMAIL PROTECTED] in > the Maintainer field for our packages, and we have a lot of packages, > then debian-perl might get a little too flooded by all kinds of > package-related mails. The gnome team has > [EMAIL PROTECTED], we could do the same > thing. Any comments?
Very wise proposal. I'm already flooded by my own BTS related mails. > In my previous mail, I said the uploader should put himself into the > changelog. This is actually not needed, he should rather use > dpkg-buildpakge -k<his keyid> to build the package, and the person in > the changelog should be listed in "Uploaders:" (otherwise it would be a > NMU). > > We also have to think about how we treat the debian revisions. When HE > changed the package a bit, he added a new entry to debian/changelog, > thus bumping the debian revision to -2 and tagged it > debian_version_0_71-2. I'd rather add lines to the current > debian/changelog entry, retag the sources (cvs tag -F > debian_version_0_71-1), and only bump the debian revision if we have > released a version. Yes, I think a changelog like the glibc's would be more appropriate. Bye the way, thanks for the explanation on how to sign and retag appropriatly. Cheers Luk PS: I didn't have the time yet to look at the packages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
