Hi there, Adeodato. On Jul 07 2007, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Rogério Brito [Sat, 07 Jul 2007 07:00:56 -0300]: > > I have already packaged a private version of libvorbis with the aotuv > > patch (which applies cleanly) and I also fixed some lintian warnings. > > > If some mentors are interested in what I did so far, I put the sources > > on my homepage: > > > http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/libvorbis/libvorbis_1.1.2.dfsg-2.0+aotuv5.dsc > > > Please, note that they are almost in a point to be uploaded to, say, > > experimental, but there are some cosmetic documentation facts that need > > some more attention (any comments are *QUITE* welcome). > > I can't believe you're looking for a sponsor for an NMU of these > characteristics, even if targetted at experimental (but the changelog > entry says 'unstable', btw).
Well, I'm not exactly looking for a sponsor. I am more interested in packaging comments than anything else. The fact that I mentioned that it could be uploaded to experimental, despite the changelog saying that it was targeted at unstable is simply another thing that I left to be corrected by people more experienced than me. Besides that, what do you mean with "these characteristics"? That it is an "intrusive" patch? I would really appreciate the inclusion of such package into debian. If not, then I think that other possibilities would be approachable. > You don't, ever, do things like that, particularly not before mailing > the bug report asking what the status of the bug is, whether the > maintainer has an opinion on it, and expressing your wish to see the > patch applied in an experimental version. Ok, sorry for that. I was, as you mentioned moved by enthusiasm and got some packaging done. I should, indeed, have contacted the maintainers. OTOH, the fact that the bug was simple to solve and the time that has passed for something this exciting made me do it. I stand corrected and wouldn't mind if we switched this discussion to the BTS or privately (even though I still want to improve my packaging skills). > We all appreciate enthusiasm and work put onto improving Debian, yours > in this case, but sometimes enthusiasm can, by ignorance or else, go off > the correct path, and this is not desirable. Consider this a friendly > note pointing out that what you're trying to do here is not quite > correct. Thank you very much. It was done with the best of the intentions, indeed. > Said that, and now with my libvorbis maintainer hat on, feel free to > mail the bug report again as hinted above, and we can discuss things. Nice! > Other options besides uploading to experimental would be uploading the > patch in a separate source package, or create a separate binary package > with the patch from the libvorbis source package, given that the ABI is > maintained. Great. I would really like to see one of these other options implemented. > Just for the record, these two were fixed in the Bazaar branch a week ago: > > http://bzr.debian.org/pkg-xiph/libvorbis I get a blank page with just a link to the parent package. Thanks, Rogério Brito. -- Rogério Brito : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/
