On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Steve Dodier<[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Andrew, > > Do you think that this would be acceptable as a package list ? >
I think that looks quite a bit cleaner. It allows for users to not have to install dependencies for things they would never use. Certainly better than the plugin situation currently in Debian/Ubuntu. The key is to hopefully getting this right the first time. It begins to get messy if plugins get moved around and Conflicts need to be used.... > > If so then I can bring the necessary fixes to the debian files and setup > a branch. I don't know anything about packaging, so there may be errors > here & there. :) Also, what should be done with the maintainer field of > the debian/copyright file (esp. maintainer field) ? The maintainer field in debian/copyright refers to the upstream maintainer(s). The maintainer field in debian/control would be set to Ubuntu Developers. I'll try to give the current package a full, proper review this week end. I'm a bit short on time. Who have you been working with on the Xubuntu side? Do they have their own packaging work or are they planning on using the upstream packaging in the PPA? Just want to make sure we're not duplicating work... Also, I'm subscribing Cody Somerville, the Xubuntu motu-release delegate to weigh in on the feasibility of getting the exception. -- New upstream version: 0.3 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/420019 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
