On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 05:43:32PM +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 17:22 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 11:13 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 02/09/10 05:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >>> So another approach would be to repackage the tarball to just > >>> include the COPYING file. While we are at it, we could also use > >>> the new Makefile and get rid of the other patch.
> >>
> >> Instead of using a quilt patch should I simply replace the > >> Makefile with the new one and check that into the master branch?
> >
> > no, that would be pretty confusing. I'd rather do these changes > > in the 'upstream' branch branch, and have a > > wiimote-0.3.1.dfsg1.orig.tar.gz created or something.
> >
> The correct approach is to have upstream fix this, not us. In the > current workflow, touching the upstream branch for stuff other than > merging upstream versions is wrong IMO.

Ok. It's in progress. I'll report back, when done.

First off, many thanks to you all for your help.

IOhannes helped me putting up a new upstream version 0.3.2, which has now a fixed Makefile and also a license file. So I could remove the quilt patch wierdness.

I hope it looks OK now.

I noticed you switched to source version 3.0 from quilt to native. I would suggest to keep using the quilt flavor even if not currently needing any patches: if at some point upstream code is changed - accidentally or deliberately - we want it to be treated by packaging routines as a patch, not a change by upstream.

Ah, one thing: Since it wasn't put to the archive yet, I didn't add a new changelog entry, but updated the existing one. Is this the correct way?

Yes, that's correct.


 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to