RFS: stumpwm (updated package)

[Desmond O. Chang]

Hi Luca!

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 20:36, Luca Capello <luca at pca.it> wrote:
> Hi Desmond!
>
> On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 02:57 +0800, Desmond O. Chang wrote:
>>
>> Actually, 1.0 has been not recommended.  We have to use many options
>> or conffiles to maintain 1.0 packages.  If it is upgraded to 3.0, we
>> can use a single 'pdebuild' without any options.  In all the packaging
>> methods that I've known so far, it's the simplest.
>
> Well, I can assure you that changing a well-known workflow is much more
> difficult than understanding source-format-3.0 ;-)
>
> And BTW, 1.0 is still a valid package format, I know of the different
> tries at pushing 3.0 as the *default* one, which I do not agree to, but
> this is another story.

I hope git-buildpackage works with 3.0 format perfectly.  I just want
my packaging work as simple as possible.  Sorry.

> Uploaded to the Debian archive.  As I already wrote, no need to upload
> your package to mentors and ask there for sponsorship: do so if I have
> not replied for one week or so, not when I am responsive ;-)
>
> And as I also wrote, we should push as much as we can git-buildpackage
> as the official tool for at least StumpWM, which means that there is no
> need to provide a full Debian package.

Thanks for uploading.  I'm sorry that I forgot your advice.  Next time
I'll ask someone on the list to build it first.

>
> BTW1, the Debian Git repository misses the debian tag for the last (and
> just uploaded) version.

I've pushed it.

>
> BTW2, please have a look at pristine-tar, we should import in the Debian
> Git repository all the previous .orig.tar.gz in a pristine-tar branch,
> so there will no need anymore for any .orig.tar.gz!

Is it necessary for stumpwm?  Since we pull the upstream repo directly.

Thanks,
Des