[Debian-olpc-devel] "readme.source and readme.cdbs" (was Re: Bug#485233: Path still broken in 23-2

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

yet another reply to an old thread.. (though I'll not comment on most of the 
mail I'm replying to as too much time has passed and the issues have mostly 
become irrelevant. Luckily I'm now done with my sugar mail backlog and I dont 
intent to let it grow so big again.)

On Mittwoch, 3. Dezember 2008, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 07:27:32PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >On Wednesday 03 December 2008 19:04, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> Info to Sugar maintainers:
> >>
> >> Generally when editing stuff below debian/cdbs first consult
> >> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/build-common/people/js/overlay/ - and
> >> consider informing me about any improvements you apply to local
> >> copies of those files.
> >
> >Ack. Should probably added to README.packaging?
>
> Better do this instead:
>
> 1) Duplicate contents of README.Packaging on some wiki page

I will do this tomorrow. When I'm home tonite I'll be too tired :-(/
(writing this offline.)

> 2) Update wiki page with above hint
>
> 3) Add README.source Or is it capital Source?), pointing to wiki page

Do you propose to just include a pointer to the wiki page in README.source or 
do you propose to only describe the stuff directly relevant to the sugar 
packages in sugars README.source and only provide a pointer for the cdbs 
stuff in there?

If its the 2nd, I'm with you. If it's the first, I disagree, since I believe a 
source package should be useful/understandable without network.

(/me expects the 2nd ;)

> 4) Drop README.Packaging



> I agree that we should only release packages working with 0.82 release
> of Sucrose.
>
> I do not agree that we should avoid activity releases newer than
> upstream releases, as long as they work properly with 0.82.

I dont think we should try to be smarter than upstream. In general I trust 
their ability to judge whether versions work together well, better than us.

> What made you resolve Calculate 0.25 as belonging to Sugar 0.83?

The sugarlabs wiki page for the 0.82 release said calculate was at 0.23.


regards,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/attachments/20090201/d0f8f3bd/attachment.pgp