On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2015, at 6:06 am, Michael Stapelberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On 23 Jun 2015, at 5:34 pm, Michael Stapelberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Sorry for the late reply. In the meantime, we’ve changed the library > naming conventions in http://pkg-go.alioth.debian.org/packaging.html, so > could you please adjust the package names? > > > > > > Let me know when you want me to take another look. > > > > OK I’m all done with renaming for packages that have not been uploaded > yet. Could you take a look? I’ve found some non-determinism in one of the > tests for goini so that and it’s antecedent globalconf can’t be uploaded > yet. > > > > golang-goini -> golang-github-glacjay-goini > > > > Uploaded. > > Thanks! > > > golang-globalconf -> golang-github-rakyll-globalconf > > > > Depends on goini, so I can’t upload it yet. > > Still working on a fix for this. I think there is an upstream bug that > needs resolving first. > > > golang-go-uuid -> golang-github-pborman-uuid > > > > This one still has export DH_GOPKG := code.google.com/p/go-uuid/uuid in > its debian/rules. Is that an oversight? In debian/{control,copyright}, you > use https://github.com/pborman/uuid > > I’m not sure. Fleet refers to it using the code.google.com namespace so > it’s consistent in that respect, but not with the repository location. The > tests refer to the package as just “uuid”. Not sure what the right answer > here is. > I think we should be using the github package name (other packages use canonical import paths to enforce this, so it’s a normal situation to be in) and change upstream to refer to the package that way. If upstream doesn’t do the change quickly enough, ship a patch in debian/patches. > > > Should I rename golang-go-semver and golang-clockwork? They’re in > testing but aren’t dependencies of any other packages yet so now would be a > good time to re-upload them with new names I think. > > > > I’ll deal with them later, ideally in an automated fashion. Currently, > the first renamed package is still in NEW, but once it’s through and hence > has validated our strategy, we can come up with a concrete plan. > > I wasn’t expecting this answer and yesterday I performed and pushed a > rename of these two packages. I can revert if that messes up your plans > otherwise they can be re-pushed in the interests of consistency. > No, that’s fine. > > > Are there any other not-yet-uploaded Go packages you want me to take a > look at? > > No, I think that’s it for the moment. > > > Thanks! > > Tim. > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Michael > > -- Best regards, Michael
_______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
