RFS: stumpwm (updated package)

[Luca Capello]

Hi Desmond!

On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 01:18 +0800, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:13, Luca Capello <luca at pca.it> wrote:
> > BTW, these are not complaints, I actually want to understand why you
> > half-switched to source-format-3.0(quilt) ;-)
> 
> Since I simply use 'pdebuild' without any options of pdebuild itself
> and dpkg (they are too long and complex), I have to change the source
> format to 3.0(quilt) so that dpkg-source will not put .git/* into the
> original tarball.

Strange, AFAIK dpkg-source (called by dpkg-buildpackage, called by
pdebuild) should already exclude .git/ when called with the -i option,
maybe were you not aware of that?

Anyway, you should actually use git-buildpackage or, better, the new
git-pbuilder script by Russ Allbery
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2010-08/002.html>.  A minimal
~/.gbp.conf to use git-buildpackage with pbuilder is:
=====
[DEFAULT]
builder = pdebuild
=====

FTR, I do not use it git-pbuilder myself, since I have custom scripts
and have not had the time to investigate it, yet.  However, it is
always a good thing to use "upstream" tools, given that they are
usually up-to-date WTR the Debian requirements (Policy, etc.).

> My original purpose is that I plan to upgrade the patches in the next
> versions so that I can release a new version as soon as possible.

Ah, OK.  Anyway, I completed the migration to source-format-3.0(quilt):

http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-common-lisp/stumpwm.git;a=commitdiff;h=9ff0c7448463d910d3a7ffa929ed832fd2eb82b6

> > Sure, while doing it directly from the Git repository I indirectly found
> > a problem with debcheckout <http://bugs.debian.org/592660> :-(

It was a problem of our Git repository, fixed.

> > Doing that, I set the distribution to "UNRELEASED" to avoid any faulty
> > upload to Debian (dput will wine if you try to upload a package with
> > that distribution) and also unfinalized the debian/changelog entry.
> > This last point is still controversial, given that there are different
> > workflows <http://bugs.debian.org/517973>.  However, my point in this
> > being that I would prefer you to finalize the package.
> 
> OK, It will be finalized after our discussing.

Please check if everything is OK (package building and lintian
cleanness) and then finalize it :-)

> > Given the quality of your work on StumpWM (I have not checked the other
> > packages you maintain, sorry) and your responsiveness, reading the
> > Debian packaging documentation (Policy, Developer Reference & Co.)
> > should not be too difficult, right?  Feel free to ask for any question
> > you have, a better list would be debian-mentors@, but if your questions
> > are Common Lisp-specific, this list is fine as well.
> >
> > Thank you for stepping in taking care of Common Lisp in Debian.
> 
> I have read the social contract, DFSG and DMUP.  Can I apply now?

Please read the full story at <http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer>,
unfortunately one of the requirements is to have your OpenPGP key signed
by at least one Debian Developer, I completely forgot it, sorry.  Look
at <http://wiki.debian.org/Keysigning/Offers> to find someone near you.

In the meantime, I will be happy to sponsor your packages, or at least
StumpWM ;-)

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/attachments/20100817/b661347c/attachment.pgp>