Bug#631933: posh: Please document upstream
On 30 June 2011 19:58, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 07:35:52PM +0100, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>> Yes: upstream. The copyright file gives the author (sorry I didn't
>> notice that before) but no indication of upstream. Also copyright
>> files are not the obvious place to look for a maintainer, which is
>> what I really meant.
>>
>> What I was really after on a web page was the upstream sources and any
>> other resources (bug tracker &c.). Of course if any of these resources
>> coincide with Debian (e.g. bug tracking) then the README could
>> usefully say that. ("Debian-native" packages often leave one to guess
>> their status simply from the information they omit, rather than by
>> explicitly saying "this package is developed in Debian: here is that
>> alioth development page; please file all bugs in the Debian BTS".)
>
> They all coincide with Debian at the moment. I will likely set
> up infrastructure sometime in the future, but I have other things
> which should take precedence, including a Savannah project request
> which has been languishing for two weeks.
That's fine of course, but documenting it clearly would be a help.
Maybe a minimal README?
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#631933: posh: Please document upstream
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 07:35:52PM +0100, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> Yes: upstream. The copyright file gives the author (sorry I didn't
> notice that before) but no indication of upstream. Also copyright
> files are not the obvious place to look for a maintainer, which is
> what I really meant.
>
> What I was really after on a web page was the upstream sources and any
> other resources (bug tracker &c.). Of course if any of these resources
> coincide with Debian (e.g. bug tracking) then the README could
> usefully say that. ("Debian-native" packages often leave one to guess
> their status simply from the information they omit, rather than by
> explicitly saying "this package is developed in Debian: here is that
> alioth development page; please file all bugs in the Debian BTS".)
They all coincide with Debian at the moment. I will likely set
up infrastructure sometime in the future, but I have other things
which should take precedence, including a Savannah project request
which has been languishing for two weeks.
If there's any intent to use posh outside of Debian, I might be
convinced to reprioritize.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#631933: posh: Please document upstream
On 30 June 2011 19:22, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:33:36PM +0100, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>>
>> There is no home page URL or even README. It would be nice to have a
>> more obvious indication of authorship and upstream.
>
> Is there information you would like beyond that which is in
> debian/copyright?
Yes: upstream. The copyright file gives the author (sorry I didn't
notice that before) but no indication of upstream. Also copyright
files are not the obvious place to look for a maintainer, which is
what I really meant.
What I was really after on a web page was the upstream sources and any
other resources (bug tracker &c.). Of course if any of these resources
coincide with Debian (e.g. bug tracking) then the README could
usefully say that. ("Debian-native" packages often leave one to guess
their status simply from the information they omit, rather than by
explicitly saying "this package is developed in Debian: here is that
alioth development page; please file all bugs in the Debian BTS".)
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#631933: posh: Please document upstream
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:33:36PM +0100, Reuben Thomas wrote: > Package: posh > Version: 0.9 > Severity: wishlist > > There is no home page URL or even README. It would be nice to have a > more obvious indication of authorship and upstream. Is there information you would like beyond that which is in debian/copyright? Is there particular information that you would like to see in a README or on a web page? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#631933: posh: Please document upstream
Package: posh Version: 0.9 Severity: wishlist There is no home page URL or even README. It would be nice to have a more obvious indication of authorship and upstream. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers natty-updates APT policy: (500, 'natty-updates'), (500, 'natty-security'), (500, 'natty') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.38-8-generic (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages posh depends on: ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.36ubuntu4 Debian configuration management sy ii libc6 2.13-0ubuntu13 Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib posh recommends no packages. posh suggests no packages. -- debconf information: posh/sh: false -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
