[Pkg-shadow-devel] Work priorities

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Nicolas Fran=E7ois (nicolas.francois@centraliens.net):
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:51:26PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Target=A0: have it build properly (and the clean target working as
> > expected) and be as close as possible to -31sarge3.
>=20
> I had trouble applying 205 until I remembered that it needed a -ko flag.

Hmmm, please educate me. Meaning of "-ko"?

This is about those RCS lines, am I right?

> I removed the PATCHLIST line from debian/rules.

Yes, you're certainly right. It comes from a time I didn't really
understood dpatch (well, I'm not sure I still understand it very well
but now I have my team of good people with me..:-)))

> Then debian/rules patch and debian/rules unpatch worked nicely and a pa=
tch
> followed by an unpatch does not change anything.

OK, Nicolas, ++beer for you, then.

> I've not committed the removal of PATCHLIST from debian/rules because i=
t
> is does not exactly the same (it only apply patches from the 00list fil=
e).
>=20
> It is IMO OK, but I would like to have your opinion before making this
> change.

Well, go ahead. PATCHLIST definitely does not seem to be the right
approach. I will probably apply the 00list thing to my other packages
which use dpatch as well when we will be OK here (geneweb and poedit).


> Anyway, a bug was submitted for dpatch.
>=20
>=20
> I will have a look at the upload tomorrow (with another approach: check=
ing
> that the closed bugs are really closed, i.e. patch applied).


The Dutch template is really changed. However, I has a bad surprise=A0:
it is really still too long..:-(. I believed the Dutch translators
when they told me it was OK now and I didn't check (they are known to
be good translators and know well the debconf things), but when I
checked it with "po-debconf-display-po", the template is still one line
too long..:-(

In the future, I anyway intend to rewrite some stuff in these
templates, especially the root password template, which is too
verbose.

I have checked that the man pages are the ones we want to have in the
package, but double-checking this again is good.

I'm currently thinking about a release process for the future life of
the package, including some internal QA checks before uploading
packages.