[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnokii 0.6.13

From: Leo Antunes
Subject: Re: gnokii 0.6.13
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:15:55 -0300

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 08:10 +0200, Pawel Kot wrote:
> I'd prefer not. Official Debian package is usually outdated due to
> Debian policy of accepting new versions. I think having it will allow
> users to build the package more easily and furthermore I still hope to
> provide the current packages on

I'm really sorry you feel this way about Debian.
By "outated due to Debian policy" you mean the unstable/testing/stable
transition time or just the time it took to enter unstable?
It really shouldn't take more than a day for a new Gnokii version to hit
Debian unstable. If it did before, I plan on making it a lot faster from
now on, now that I took over maintainership of the package. (0.6.13 is
already in the upload queue)

Regarding the ease of building, if I understood correctly, you believe
using the Debian structure makes it easier for people installing from
I'm not really sure this would be necessary if the Debian archive was
up-to-date, and it feels like duplicated work, but I really have no
objective arguments against it, other than the fact that both Debian
packages (yours and mine) will eventually differ significantly.

> Well, it wasn't that different at 0.6.12 release. I still use it for
> preparing packages for Ubuntu. BTW. Does official Debian package still
> contain outdated copyright file? ;-)

I did a little cleaning up before 0.6.12, but the bigger part of the
cleaning (separating gnokii/xgnokii, removing hardcoded directories from
debian/rules, etc) are going on right now, and will hopefully be ready
for 0.6.14.

About the copyright file, it totally slipped me, the updated file should
hit the archive tomorrow, right along with 0.6.13.


PS.: sometimes I feel being overly polite sounds like sarcasm, so, just
to be on the safe side: I'm not being sarcastic anywhere in this email.
(you can never be too safe when avoiding useless flamewars! :-) )

Leo Antunes <address@hidden>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]