first package: pd-wiimote

[Roman Haefeli]

On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 18:29 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 05:43:32PM +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> >On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 17:22 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 11:13 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >> > On 02/09/10 05:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >>> So another approach would be to repackage the tarball to just 
> >> > >>> include the COPYING file. While we are at it, we could also use 
> >> > >>> the new Makefile and get rid of the other patch.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Instead of using a quilt patch should I simply replace the 
> >> > >> Makefile with the new one and check that into the master branch?
> >> > >
> >> > > no, that would be pretty confusing. I'd rather do these changes 
> >> > > in the 'upstream' branch branch, and have a 
> >> > > wiimote-0.3.1.dfsg1.orig.tar.gz created or something.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > The correct approach is to have upstream fix this, not us. In the 
> >> > current workflow, touching the upstream branch for stuff other than 
> >> > merging upstream versions is wrong IMO.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ok. It's in progress. I'll report back, when done.
> >
> >First off, many thanks to you all for your help.
> >
> >IOhannes helped me putting up a new upstream version 0.3.2, which has 
> >now a fixed Makefile and also a license file. So I could remove the 
> >quilt patch wierdness.
> >
> >I hope it looks OK now.
> 
> I noticed you switched to source version 3.0 from quilt to native.  I 
> would suggest to keep using the quilt flavor even if not currently 
> needing any patches: if at some point upstream code is changed - 
> accidentally or deliberately - we want it to be treated by packaging 
> routines as a patch, not a change by upstream.

Sounds reasonable. Done.

Roman