On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:16:28PM +0100, Bluefuture wrote: > > Hello Bluefuture, > > while I appreciate your effort with DEHS, I think you do not realise > > how many package cannot have useful watch files. > > > > I maintain 9 non Debian-native sources packages: > > 1 have no upstream website anymore. > > Is it upstream unmantained? From where you download new releases? > There isn't any upstream work for it for months/years and you are developing > patch becoming "de facto" the debian upstream author?
This is libjpeg. Last upstream release from 1998. It is virtually bugfree. I just make minor changes to the packaging. > > 1 has no upstream tarball. (The source tarball is made by aggregation > > of files found on the upstream website). > > Well no dehs/watch file info is possible we cannot talk about official > upstream releases. > > > 1 is not versionned upstream. > > Well no dehs/watch file info is possible we cannot talk about official > upstream releases. > > > 4 do not come with usable upstream tarball for Debian, so I need to > > repackage them. > > If i could retrive version number from tarball for some package i can use > watch file without uupdate option. Yes, but if I provide a watch file, people will use uscan and end up with garbage. > Well by dehs point of view all this are useful because dehs doesn't use > watch file as maintainer option tools, but as an overhall information system > about debian and external relationship. Then you should improve uscan and the watch format so that it can support more kind of packages. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
