[request-tracker-maintainers] RT command-by-mail

[Niko Tyni]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:50:27AM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it's optimal to depend on request-tracker3.4 |
> > request-tracker3.6 . This rules out people with non-packaged RT
> > installations, which is probably quite common. (Well, they could use
> > equivs or something, but they probably don't.)  Maybe 
> > 
> >  Enhances: request-tracker3.4 (>= 3.4.6), request-tracker3.6 (>= 3.6.1)
> 
> Since the package is useless without RT installed I thought policy
> mandated that it depended on everything required for it to be useful,
> including having a real package as the first in a list of alternates so
> that it can be installed if nothing else is already. The argument about
> non-packaged dependencies could apply to anything else (should I depend
> on perl? they might have non-packaged perl) and is somewhat specious.

Right, I didn't realize it use()s RT core modules, so there's indeed
no choice.

An Enhances field would still be a good addition, I think.

> What I'll probably do is upgrade to 3.6 once we migrate to etch and then
> try again with that. I might depend just on 3.6 in that case as this
> won't be in stable until Lenny, by which time everyone should be on 3.6
> anyway.

Yes, maybe just forgetting about 3.4 is the right thing to do at this
stage. I'm not sure if we're going to upload 3.4.6 at all... 

> I think I'll probably put the RT group as maintainer with myself as
> uploader, unless anyone has any big objections.

I'll need your Alioth username to properly add you to the
pkg-request-tracker group then. It would be good to svn-inject the
package into the SVN repository at svn.debian.org/pkg-request-tracker.

There's some Alioth documentation at

 http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth

in case you're not familiar with it yet.

Cheers,
-- 
Niko