Hello again, I actually tried to do this myself as a fun little "improve Debian packaging skills" project, and it kind-of works already. It requires two fixes for the pythonqt package (patches filed).
There is a github repository where plugins are downloaded from by screencloud, and I just added the master HEAD of that repository as a second upstream tarball for the package. This appears not to be 100% supported by git-buildpackage, but I think I managed to work my way around the limitations (see below). One issue is that those plugins have bundled source copies of python libraries, which in turn have source copies of other python libraries (the .tar.xz is 1.4 MB). For some of those plugins the license situation might be dangerous (i.e. missing NOTICES file and missing LICENSE file for an Apache 2.0 project, only the source files indicate the license and sure enough, it looks like the source directory was probably ripped out of the library github repo). Also, I'm not sure if PNG is the correct "source" format for all of the included image files in the orig tarball. Some of them are screenshots, so that's hopefully DFSG-ok, but a few look like the preferred form for modification might not be PNG. Just to clarify, in order for the package to be okay for Debian, those files must be removed from the orig tarball? It's not enough to not add them to the binary deb package? Since upstream doesn't really use tarballs (they are only created by github on-the-fly as a side effect of tagging), I fetched the upstream tag to a local "upstream" branch and the upstream screencloud-plugins master branch to a local "upstream-plugins" branch. I then branched "master" off of "upstream", did the debian work there and added the "upstream-plugins" branch as a "./plugins" git-subtree to "master". I also use the "single-debian-patch" option. I added a script to prepare an "orig-plugins" tarball from the "upstream-plugins" branch. Now, when I run git-buildpackage, it generates an orig tarball from the "upstream" branch and the debian tarball containing a patch with differences between master and upstream[-plugins]. Is that okay, since there is nothing like an upstream "pristine" tarball? Only pristine git tags, and in the case of the -plugins repo, not even tags. Git master HEAD seems to be the current plugins "release" at all times. I think I'll upload the package to an Ubuntu PPA and a public git repo once I'm happy with it, so someone who likes the software can pick it up and improve the license/dfsg/general Debian policy situation. I'm not sure what exactly needs to be done in that area and how to dfsg-modify my way of keeping upstream sources in branches instead of tarballs. Maybe just add commits to those branches? Hm. I've already fixed all the lintian warnings, but the man page might need some language help from someone with proper English skills. :-) Cheers, Florian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
