Stéphane Glondu glo...@debian.org writes:
Le 06/03/2012 15:22, Benoît Knecht a écrit :
I think it important for any maintainer to clearly differentiate in
their mind upstream from Debian, even if they happen to be the same
person. Otherwise, you're artificially limiting your software to
Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[...]
The package is native because I am both maintainer and upstream
author. Does a watch file make sense for a native package?
Le 07/03/2012 09:14, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
I really don't get that argument. Nothing in having a debian directory
in the source hinders any other distribution. And plenty of sources
contain spec files for building rpms to no detriment to Debian. If any
non rpm based distribution picks
Le 07/03/2012 09:52, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
That is what major, minor and subversions (x.y.z) are for. If I change
only something in Debian I would not increment x or y and I would not
create a new tarball for release on e.g. ocamlforge.
I find this confusing. Debian has standardized
Stéphane Glondu glo...@debian.org writes:
Le 07/03/2012 09:52, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
That is what major, minor and subversions (x.y.z) are for. If I change
only something in Debian I would not increment x or y and I would not
create a new tarball for release on e.g. ocamlforge.
I
Stéphane Glondu glo...@debian.org writes:
Le 07/03/2012 09:14, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
With a moments thought I would have 3 branches:
- master
- upstream
- pristine-tar
All developement would happen in the master branch. Then before the
Debian upload I would merge master -
Hi Goswin,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libaio-ocaml
* Package name: libaio-ocaml
Version : 1.0~rc1
Upstream Author : Goswin von Brederlow
tags 662632 - moreinfo
thanks
Stéphane Glondu glo...@debian.org writes:
Le 05/03/2012 12:33, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libaio-ocaml
I've looked at the git repository (037a448). It is written explicitly in
[1]:
Do not close RFS bugs in
Benoit Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org writes:
Hi Goswin,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libaio-ocaml
* Package name: libaio-ocaml
Version : 1.0~rc1
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[...]
The package is native because I am both maintainer and upstream
author. Does a watch file make sense for a native package?
That's not what native means. See the third point of
Le 06/03/2012 15:22, Benoît Knecht a écrit :
I think it important for any maintainer to clearly differentiate in
their mind upstream from Debian, even if they happen to be the same
person. Otherwise, you're artificially limiting your software to Debian,
which is at the opposite side of what
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal [important for RC bugs, wishlist for new packages]
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libaio-ocaml
* Package name: libaio-ocaml
Version : 1.0~rc1
Upstream Author : Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de
*
retitle 662632 RFS: libaio-ocaml/1.0~rc1 [ITP] -- OCaml bindings for libaio
tags 662632 moreinfo
thanks
Hi Goswin,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libaio-ocaml
* Package name: libaio-ocaml
Version : 1.0~rc1
Upstream Author : Goswin
Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org writes:
retitle 662632 RFS: libaio-ocaml/1.0~rc1 [ITP] -- OCaml bindings for libaio
tags 662632 moreinfo
thanks
Hi Goswin,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libaio-ocaml
* Package name: libaio-ocaml
Le 05/03/2012 12:33, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
I am looking for a sponsor for my package libaio-ocaml
I've looked at the git repository (037a448). It is written explicitly in
[1]:
Do not close RFS bugs in debian/changelog.
but the bug you refer to in debian/changelog is a RFS bug
15 matches
Mail list logo
