Hi,
[sorry for the delay..]
boyska wrote (15 May 2014 12:47:18 GMT) :
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:46:11PM +0200, vinc3nt wrote:
>>but the equivs (or similar stuff) configuration files are still missing
> it's all a bit "raw", but some "tar + ar" will do its job. I don't know
> why ono-sendai did it that way, but it's not difficult to change.
I think a standard Debian source package layout, that uses (the
quasi-standard) debhelper, would be more familiar to most people used
to package stuff for Debian... including me:
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/packaging-tutorial/packaging-tutorial.en.pdf
Whom shall I send my comments on the initial packaging? (E.g.
using dpkg-divert for conffiles is explicitly unsupported, and has
undefined behavior.)
It would be interesting to see if we can bring this package to the
point where it's ready for Debian (or at least, almost ready, and then
we'll know what the blockers exactly are).
So, if one of you folks wants to dive deeper into packaging, and learn
quite a bit along the way, then I'm happy to give a hand (mainly by
answering the occasional question, pointing to best practices and
tools). Maybe u <u@???>, a Tails contributor who's reading this
list, and has seen her first packages uploaded to Debian recently
(congrats!), would be interested in giving a hand too.
> By the way, just for this reason we have not included it in freepto
> repository, yet. So solving this is required for freepto, too.
Great :)
>>> Or, each of our project could take care of hosting
>>> their binary package, and we would "only" share maintenance of the
>>> source package.
>>
>>the last option sounds good for me..
>>probably create a new dedicated repository would result in additional effort.
> completely agree.
ACK.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
