* Jan Nieuwenhuizen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > * Maintain the definition/description of build meister. ok, no problem. > 1. have his package/CVS in a good state > 2. be [one of] the first to find out something extra is needed for > his platform (in your case Debian package), or that something > breaks his package > 3. report the problem or fix it, and notify other packagers of this > problem, and of your fix (for debian). > Does that sound reasonable? What do you think?
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But taking from item 2, maybe I should keep an eye on Debian Sarge (the next to-be-release version). I'm always running an almost-up-to-date unstable, so if something is broken it may not show up in my system. > I would not go that way, but rather seek more direct cooperation with > other builders, or find and recrute new builders. > Just Debian is fine. Rather than building other weekly packages, you > could try to monitor the state all packages are in, and try to ask > (does your package still build? do you need help?) > /encourage/pester/help packagers that have not updated their package. I think that this is the way to go. We have been fortunate enough to have nice people packaging lilypond for different distributions/platforms. Indeed, if we check the download page, there are packages of 2.2 for almost all distribution/platforms. I was referring, of course, to the weekly builds of development code, since I was unsure [all] people would be able to do it [in a weekly base]. But of course is way better to seek collaboration than trying to do all by myself. I'll start my job pestering^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hencouraging the Debian maintainer to update to 2.2, specially because of the new info files. Ferenc Wagner has come up with a nice solution, I also was trying to deal with it, but I think that is better to have an "official" solution for once. Pedro _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
