Hi Guido,
Am 25.09.21 um 12:09 schrieb Guido Günther:
>> What is the rationale behind that note?
>
> This documents current practice (I documented what I found when looking
> into getting packages into PureOS proper).
>
> If you think it's a bad idea just
>
> - make a proposal (e.g. drop, change to XSBC-*) on tracker.pureos.net.
> - if there's a discussion let's find consensus
> - if there's no discussion even better (i'd wait for >2w for feedback)
> -…
[View More] adjust the documentation
> - close the issue
thanks, so there is no hard reasoning for the current state.
I'll follow your suggestion within the next days, the mentioned solution
is btw. the best way to get this done I think.
--
Regards
Carsten Schoenert
[View Less]
Hi,
as I'm still quite new with contributing to PureOS I faced a question
yesterday while working on T1076 and T1079.
While preparing seahorse for byzantium lintian was complaining about
'invalid-field-for-derivative' for the still existing Uploaders field.
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/invalid-field-for-derivative
Looking at https://tracker.pureos.net/w/development/packaging_overview/
there is mentioned "Note that the Uploaders: field remains untouched."
What is the rationale behind …
[View More]that note?
Personally I believe that Lintian is of course right here, I myself e.g
have users that email me from time to time about some problems in KiCad
e.g. which aren't rooted in Debian as they use the PPA for Ubuntu, but
got my email address from the package data. I quite almost need to point
the users to the PPA owner. It's not that difficult but sometimes
annoying me.
So why should a user of PureOS get in contact with the uploaders of an
package in Debian if he correctly should contact the packagers for PureOS?
Why is this error message in lintian currently ignored for PureOS?
--
Regards
Carsten Schoenert
[View Less]