On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 at 16:06:18 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> The ‘rst2odt’ and ‘rst2man’ packages should stay in some form, I think.
> That's the end-user package that people are generally looking for when
> they want the writer.
>
> Perhaps ‘docutils’ 0.6 should ‘Provides: rst2man, rst2odt’ or the like?
In svn it already does. However, note that python-docutils has never had a
Provides for (say) rst2html, only for things it has subsumed. I don't think
it's right to have "program bundle" packages Provide package names just because
they have an executable of that name (the Packages file is big enough already),
but it might be worth mentioning "scripts like rst2html and rst2latex",
or some similar wording, in the Description.
> Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> writes:
> > Unrelated to 0.6, I've been thinking about handing over
> > python-docutils to someone else - I hardly use it myself, and I'm not
> > really in touch with upstream, so I'd welcome a takeover from anyone
> > who can give it more attention than me.
[...]
> Uploaders: martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>, Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org>
>
> Is that sufficient, or were you wanting a different arrangement?
The fact that I get pinged about packaging docutils 0.6 suggests that I'm
considered the primary maintainer regardless of what the metadata says :-)
Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature