[request-tracker-maintainers] reckuest-tracker4 improvements

[Dmitry Smirnov]

Hi Dominic,

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:49:44 Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:37:01PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > Dear Dominic,
> > 
> > Thank you for your work on request-tracker package.
> > 
> > I'd like to join your friendly team with some little improvements of
> > mine.
> 
> Great, thanks for the interest! You'll want to join the mailing list at
> <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-request-tracke
> r-maintainers> as a starting point.

Done, thanks for advice.

> 
> >   * Patch to add new package rt4-fcgi
> >   
> >     (also providing nginx configuration example
> >     
> >      and adding myself to uploaders)
> 
> Okay. I think there is already a bug about providing alternatives to
> Apache, but I can't find it right now.

From quick search it could be #486633:

    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=486633

or #503454:

    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=503454

It is truly annoying to pull apache if request tracker meant to be used with 
different web-server.


> 
> >   * Patch to add the changes above to debian/changelog
> 
> debian/changelog entries should, where possible, be included in the
> patch/commit to which they relate, rather than separate - makes it much
> easier to pick out the relevant changes.

Sure, I will comply. 

For some reason I thought that if you only want to apply some of my changes 
but not all of them this could make cherry-picking easier.

With your permission I can properly push the proposed changes one by one, 
accompanied with changelog notes.

> 
> Incidentally, you should normally set the distribution in a changelog
> entry to UNRELEASED unless you are finalising an entry just before upload.
> 

No worries, will do so.

Sorry about this - I reckon partially it comes from bad habit of publishing to 
mentors which only accept packages targeted for 'unstable'.
Also this was more for your knowledge rather than to be directly applied.


> > Just wondering why we're using a private 'ckeditor' copy instead of
> > depending on 'ckeditor' package?
> > Is there are a technical problem with this?
> 
> IIRC the precise version of ckeditor is needed - previously, if it now,
> upstream modified ckeditor in place.

Interesting. Is this worth mentioning in README.source ?

> 
> I'll review your patches in more detail later.

Fantastic, thank very much for your time.

All the best,
Dmitry.