-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Woo, I had almost given up trying to find a sponsor for this package, most people took off screaming :-).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjBm80ACgkQpblTBJ2i2pufMgCbBretKAaIRDzB3S3h6/syJJL2 6f8An3S2klIL/QWGbFwVygH+ZFMEFt7L =j+IH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:57 PM, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Michael, > > I found your package on mentors archive, and I'm generally interested in > uploading codeblocks to Debian archive, since I intend to use it. In fact we > have already gave it a try and found it much lightweight and intuitive as > compared to eclipse + CDT for instance and AFAICS reading that buglog there > are quite some people interested in codeblocks package who are now using > their own local ones. Packaging looks fine to, but some comments though: > > * I found some pieces of code which seem to be external projects (tinyxml, > wxscintilla, both hosted at sf.net); a simple grep for `author' or `file by' > would reveals these details. Also licensecheck (devscripts) would be helpful. > So, these licences and copyrights should also be listed in debian/copyright > file, which presumably is in machine interpretable format. However, having so > much code duplication doesn't help security, so we would be better off > approaching upstream and find ways to use these packages (not packaged yet) > separately, and not carry them with codeblocks source tree. These could be > sort of tedious and time consuming dealing with upstream. > Probably a good idea, but it requires a lot of coordination with upstream, which I'm not sure they're willing to do. The copyright file however I agree can be updated. > * I haven't looked at their trunk lately, but is there any progress on sorting > out that `global plugins path' hack you have applied to the package ? > No response on multiple threads and posts (not just me) to fix this bug. I get the feeling its not going to get fixed anytime soon. > * I also think that such a tremendous package as a codebase should be > maintained by a team, ubuntu guys are also welcome of course. Any > suggestions ? > The package is maintained by the MOTU team in Ubuntu (I did the initial packaging work, and a peek at the changelog shows that its already an accepted Ubuntu package), but I have no objections to making it a team package; My only condition is I allow day-zero NMUs on my packages, and any co-maintainer must allow that on packages I co-maintain with. Other then that, no issues with any NM or DD who wishs to work on it. Michael > [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat > > -- > pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
