> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:27:00 +0200 > Philipp Hartwig <p...@phhart.de> wrote: > > > OK. I got a package. The repo is at > > > > https://github.com/dkogan/notion-scripts > > That was quick, great. Right now a $ git-buildpackage fails for me with the > message "gbp:error: upstream is not a valid branch", and if I try to checkout > the upstream branch, I get into 'detached HEAD' state with > HEAD is now at b9bd818... updated README, verify_index.pl to refer to "notion"
I set it up to take the upstream code from the branch "upstream". When you checked out the code, you only checked out the "master" branch. Thus you didn't have a branch "upstream", only "origin/upstream". There are several ways to deal with this. The easiest is to check out the code with "gbp-clone" instead of "git clone". As far as I can tell this does a normal clone and also checks out the "upstream" branch. It's a bit more common to take the upstream from a tag instead of a branch, which avoids this issue entirely. Since these contributed scripts aren't really a project on their own (rather a collection of many small projects), I don't want to tag stuff. As for the detached HEAD, I'm not 100% sure what's going on, but it's likely you're using git wrong somehow. I can help explain if you tell me exactly which commands gave you that. > > This is a plain git-buildpackage repository. Debian branch is "master", > > while > > the upstream branch is "upstream". I did make one patch to the upstream copy > > itself (updating the README and such), so please merge that in, if you can. > > Please don't make any changes outside of the debian folder, but rather create > a debian patch for them. If the patch looks suitable for an inclusion > upstream, this will be done and then the patch can be dropped on the next > upstream import. Let's simply make that a policy please. :) Sure. This was me asking for a merge to upstream. I'll be more explicit. > While I agree that some changes to the README and verify_index.pl are in > order, your changes look suitable only for the Debian package. In the > upstream > version, the README is part of the contrib repository, so I don't think it > should refer to the contrib repository through an external url. And also in > verify_index.pl, upstream it should refer to the contrib directory, while in > the Debian package it should refer to the notion-scripts directory. OK. That sounds fine. Do you think it makes sense to keep a reference to the old, dead repo in the README (the folk.ntnu... link)? > Can you somehow revert these changes? I'll do something upstream and then > you/we can create a debian patch. Sure. I'll rebase my patch out. > > - I left the Suggests field in debian/control as it was. More scripts have > > been > > added since the last package was up-to-date, so this list is probably > > incomplete now > > Actually I think we should drop all the current suggests, and only > potentially > suggest packages that would benefit the script collection as a whole (I can't > think of any right now). This is how the irssi-scripts and vim-scripts > packages handle it. Sounds good. > > - The web addresses in debian/control don't exist yet. If this package > > becomes > > hosted on Alioth next to notion itself, these will become correct > > Okay, I'm not sure what is necessary to get it hosted on Alioth, probably > Arnout can help here. I'd like to see this hosted there, but it's up to somebody with the proper privileges. > > - LICENSE file says GPL3 unless otherwise stated, but some other places > > state > > "public domain" unless otherwise stated. This is a discrepancy that > > should be > > resolved. The GPL3 seems to be the wrong one between the two. > > Ugh, weird. The ion3-scripts package does not contain such a LICENSE file, so > I don't even know where it comes from. We'll change this upstream once I've > figured out what's going on there. This file was added in the very first commit in the git repo. This repo postdates ion3-scripts, hence no such file there. Juri Hamburg pushed this license to the repo on 2010/06/10. I'm not going to do anything with this right now. If somebody has strong opinions, tell me. Otherwise, I think this should be changed to "public domain" to match the previous releases. > > - Some of the scripts had an explicit copyright, but no explicit license. > > How > > are these to be treated? I'm calling these out as unspecified in the > > debian/copyright. Do these revert to "public domain"? > > Most of them are by Etan Reisner. I've asked him about it and will let you > know about the response. You can find us in #notion on freenode btw. I see you updated this upstream (MIT license). I updated the debian/copyright accordingly. > > - The debian/copyright had some of its licenses stated incorrectly (mostly > > things like GPL vs LGPL, GPL2 vs GPL2+, etc). I corrected these. If > > anything > > more needs to happen, I'm bringing it up here. > > I thought I had been rather careful with this ... Anyway, two entries seem to > be > missing from the new file, is that on purpose? These are: > > scripts/query_url.lua > (C) 2005 Reuben Thomas and "released under the GPL", which can only mean GPL > Version 1. > > scripts/xkbion.lua > (C) Sergey Redin with LICENSE UNSPECIFIED Not on purpose. This was an oversight on my part. Added. Also found another missing one: heuristics.lua. There are now 3 files with unspecified licenses. What should be done with these? The new debianization is now uploaded to that same repo. I'll hang out in #notion for a few hours (I'm in the USA), so you can talk to me there if you like. dima -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
