I've made changes to RPi.GPIO and am ready to repack. But what about the documentation ?

Hello all,

You might not have noticed (yeah, right :-) ), but I've been busy making changes to the RPi.GPIO package, and am now ready to repackage it. As such am looking at its documentation and have a few questions about what I'm supposed to be doing there.

Mind you: I'm not aiming to spread the package (just backing it up as a reference), but would want to have it in order for when it happens anyway.

1) I have /no/ intention to remove the origional writers name (Ben Croston), but at the same time I do not want him to be emailed and blamed if-and-when something goes wrong due to changes/additions I made. What is the standard way to handle this ?

2) I currently upped the version number (from 2.7.0 to 2.7.1) to indicate a difference with bens version, but anyone else making changes to the 2.7.0 version (even ben himself) would cause an clash. What am I supposed to do here ?

3) anything I might have missed in this regard.

Or maybe better: Does anyone know where to find documentation which adresses these issues ?

Regards, Rudy Wieser

Reply to
R.Wieser
Loading thread data ...

Are the changes you have made generic and a usefull extension of the software? Then why not offer the changes back to the original author as a contribution to improve the package?

Reply to
Jim Jackson

Having seen the exchanges in this group, whatever you do please make sure your changes are clearly identified with your name for obvious reasons.

Reply to
mm0fmf

Jim,

Possible (although they are to me), but I doubt it (they might even be going against the intention of the origional writer). The RPi.GPIO package as it currently exists seems to be more than five years old (Copyright (c)

2012-2014 Ben Croston), and I've been told that other, newer packages are superior to it.

To be honest, I made the changes as a way to learn about how a binary extension works/is created. And in that I did succeed.

Regards, Rudy Wieser

Reply to
R.Wieser

If you are not going to pass it back to be incorporated into the "official" package then i would suggest you fork it into a new package.

--
A real person has two reasons for doing anything ... a good reason and 
the real reason.
Reply to
Alister

It doesn't sound like you want to feedback to the original project - your choice. In that case it would be courteous to change the name of the project and call it version 1. Then you own it, and as you say acknowledge it's based on the other persons work.

Reply to
Jim Jackson

Alister,

Any info and/or links about how I should handle such a forking ? Whats expected from me when doing it ?

Not that I'm actualy out to fork, but the preliminary work (documentation, versioning) might be what I'm after.

Regards, Rudy Wieser

Reply to
R.Wieser

Jim,

Want ? Yes. Consider it a reachable goal ? No (for reasons already mentioned).

Thats all it takes ? Just naming it something like RPi.GPIO2 ? Blimy.

Hmmm... In that case, is there a way (and how) to check if the new name I would come up with (like the above) is still free ? I've got no wish to create a clash there either.

Regards, Rudy Wieser

Reply to
R.Wieser

Mmmm... Personally, I think I'd make it more of a name change.

There's no definitive way - Google the new name? I've created OSS programs that unfortunately clashed with other program names. In one case, when someone created a debian package, they changed the names - they probably did a huge search of file names over the whole of debian - I've no idea. In fact didn't know until someone got in touch to ask a question about one of programs with the new name :-)

If you are looking for a manual on how to do these things - there isn't one :-(

Reply to
Jim Jackson

Jim,

That was indeed my idea (of sorts). Alas.

Regards, Rudy Wieser

Reply to
R.Wieser

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.