Am Sonntag, den 22.07.2012, 19:50 -0500 schrieb Robert Park: > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Aditya Vaidya <kroq.ga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also, just on a side note: I think the version you're submitting to Mentors > > (or wherever in Debian) should be "2.0-1", not "2.0-precise3". > > This is the kind of answer I was looking for, thank you ;-) > > I knew precise was wrong, but just wasn't really sure what to put > there. I had already guessed 2.0-4 because I wanted to make it clear > that it was newer than the precise3 one (although when I tested the > package, apt seemed to think that precise3 was the newer one, not sure > how it figured that -- I guess it just sorts the versions lexically > and numbers sort before letters?). > > I opened up synaptic and pulled up changelogs for a handful of random > packages that didn't have 'ubuntu' in the version number, and they all > seem to be packaged for 'unstable', so that's what I've chosen for > mine, which I've now uploaded to mentors.debian.net.
Debian uses -1, -2, and so on for the package revision. Ubuntu appends ubuntu1, ubuntu2, and so on if they change something in the package. -0ubuntu1, -0ubuntu2, and so on is used if the package is not taken from Debian. -1 will be higher than any -0ubuntuX version. > Of course, it > looks like debian is in freeze, so I guess I'm supposed to pursue > acceptance in universe before I'll be able to get it into debian > unstable. Is that right? I filed a needs-packaging bug in launchpad. The Debian freeze prevents packages to move from unstable to testing, but it does not prevent new packages into unstable. It's recommended to get the package in Debian first and then use requestsync (or syncpackage if you have upload rights) to get it synced into Ubuntu. I had a quick look at your package on mentors: 1) The changelog should only contain entries for version that are actually in the archive. In your case, only one changelog entry would remain. 2) You should close the ITP bug with your first upload. 3) Please drop the comments in debian/rules 4) The changelog Format should point to http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ instead of the unversioned http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 5) You might want to use wrap-and-sort to make your debian/control file look nicer. 6) >= 8.0.0 can be shortened to >= 8 7) The Vcs-* entries should point to the packaging branches and these should preferable hosted on Debian infrastructure like Alioth. 8) Do you really need patches for your Debian package? 9) You should add a debian/watch file if you release source tarballs. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
