Comment 8 for bug 420019

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Steve Dodier<email address hidden> wrote:
> Hey Andrew,
>
> Do you think that this would be acceptable as a package list ?
>

I think that looks quite a bit cleaner. It allows for users to not
have to install dependencies for things they would never use.
Certainly better than the plugin situation currently in Debian/Ubuntu.

The key is to hopefully getting this right the first time. It begins
to get messy if plugins get moved around and Conflicts need to be
used....

>
> If so then I can bring the necessary fixes to the debian files and setup
> a branch. I don't know anything about packaging, so there may be errors
> here & there. :) Also, what should be done with the maintainer field of
> the debian/copyright file (esp. maintainer field) ?

 The maintainer field in debian/copyright refers to the upstream
maintainer(s). The maintainer field in debian/control would be set to
Ubuntu Developers.

I'll try to give the current package a full, proper review this week
end. I'm a bit short on time.

Who have you been working with on the Xubuntu side? Do they have their
own packaging work or are they planning on using the upstream
packaging in the PPA? Just want to make sure we're not duplicating
work...

Also, I'm subscribing Cody Somerville, the Xubuntu motu-release
delegate to weigh in on the feasibility of getting the exception.