[Pkg-rust-maintainers] Feeling ITP for binary [was Re: ITP: bat -- bat: A cat(1) clone with wings]

[Ximin Luo]

Sylvestre Ledru:
> On 29/08/2018 10:56, Paride Legovini wrote:
>> Raju Devidas wrote on 29/08/2018:
>>> On बुधवार 29 ऑग 2018 05:26 म.पू., Paride Legovini wrote:
>>>> Raju Devidas wrote on 28/08/2018:
>>>>> Package: wnpp
>>>>> Severity: wishlist
>>>>> Owner: Raju Devidas <rajudev at disroot.org> 
>>>>>
>>>>> * Package name    : bat
>>>>>
>>>>> There is an RFP for this (#907080)
>>>>> I intend to maintain this package under Debian Rust Team. 
>>>>
>>>> The packing is actually already done (the very little Rust packages
>>>> normally require). See:
>>>>
>>>> https://salsa.debian.org/rust-team/debcargo-conf/tree/master/src/bat/
>>>>
>>>> but several dependencies are still missing
>>
>>> Thanks for letting me know. If the RFP would have been retitled earlier
>>> as an ITP, that would have saved me the trouble.
>>> But I understand, things happen.
>>
>> The fact is that we normally proceed without ITPs in the Rust team, the
>> pace is quite faster than the Debian average. Also: the packaging is
>> very thin (basically just metadata) and all hosted in a single
>> repository (debcargo-conf), then debcargo (called by update.sh) builds
>> the actual Debian package. So normally is it enough to look in
>> debcargo-conf/src to see is a package is already being worked on. Even
>> the concept of Maintainer is still very fluid.
> We should start filling ITP for rust binary (not libs).
> 
> What do you think guys?
> 

Sounds reasonable to me.

X

-- 
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git