RFS: vim-latexsuite

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 06:37:06PM +0200, Franz Pletz wrote:
> > I have a remark about the version number, why is it 0.<date>. The common
> > scheme for this is just <date>, can you please move it to that scheme?
> Upstream has this version numbering scheme. I don't know why, perhaps they
> will release a 1.0 someday? When converting to the <date> scheme wouldn't
> there be problems when they actually release a 1.0?

Why you state that? Upstream tarballs are named with the plain <date>
and I'm unable to find any explicit version elsewhere (e.g. the
changelog uses svn revision numbers). Note that is very likely that I
simply haven't looked in the right places ...

> Hmm, I just skimmed through the svn-buildpackage manpage and the howto
> but there seems no option for svn-buildpackage to supply upstream
> tarballs. Then I found the mergeWithUpstream property for debian/ which
> instructs svn-buildpackage to take the upstream tarball from origDir
> (in .svn/deblayout) and extract it to the build-area.

Gotcha! That's what I forgot mergeWithUpstream!!
Still, the property was not set on the debian/ dir committed in svn
while it should be. I've just set it, and added an upstream/ dire
side-by-side with debian. Downloading there upstream tarball and naming
appropriately (e.g. upstream/vim-latexsuite_0.20060325.orig.tar.gz) will
do the trick.

> Looking at how you manage this in vim and vim7 it seems you fetch the
> upstream tarballs into upstream/tarballs and extract them afterwards
> (after cleaning up) in debian/rules.

Indeed, for vim/vim7 we don't use svn-buildpackage, but this is just
because we never changed the packaging scheme that existed before we
moved to svn and because we add the need of easily add upstream patches
that we just "plug-in" as soon as they get released. For vim-latexsuite
I would like to use properly svn-buildpackage, as I do for tens of
packages in the pkg-ocaml-maintainers project.

Regarding whether to actually have the tarballs on the repository I'm on
favor of it so that it will always be possible to go back to a
particular version of the package, no matter what upstream will do in
the future.

Other people tend not to agree to the potential large usage of svn
space. I don't know what other people of pkg-vim think, thus for the
moment I did not check it in.

Since now I've been able to review the package I've some more comments
on it:
- why that lintian override for the gpl boilerplate? is it really
  needed? it does not seem to me you have the gpl in the copyright file
  ...

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-vim-maintainers/attachments/20060418/bc739824/attachment-0001.pgp