Jonas Smedegaard [2009-05-25 0:11 +0200]: > My comment was more general, however: Instead of developing on the > Ubuntu package and then "backport" the changes to Debian, I recommend > doing it the other way around: Join our team, apply changes to the > Debian package, and pull the result to Ubuntu. > > If interested, and if you are not a Debian developer or have an Alioth > account for other reasons, I would be quite happy to help you gain write > access to our Git repository, so you can work directly on it.
For the record, that's exactly how cups is maintained nowadays: Till has commit access to the Debian packaging bzr tree on alioth and we check that all the changes that get applied there make sense for Debian and Ubuntu. There are a few parts where cups behaves differently in Ubuntu, which we solved by asking lsb_release in debian/rules. We can do this for the ghostscript-cups dependency as well, but I agree that doing that package split would make sense in Debian, too. But it's not blocking anything. Till has collected experience with Debian packaging for several years now, and knows his way through patch systems, maintainer scripts, control files, etc. He is also _the_ upstream printing guru, so setting up a shared maintenance of the ghostscript package would totally make sense to me as well. It helped a lot to do so in cups, both distros benefit from fixes immediately and we don't maintain two packages. Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
