Hi Bruno, 2014-09-21 7:35 GMT-03:00 Bruno Nova <brunomb.n...@gmail.com>: >> Hmm, this is an interesting point. The "education" section was added by >> the FTP Masters back in 2012, and grep-dctrl -FSection education seems >> to show me at least 128 binary packages matching that (e.g. gcompris, >> kanadic, scratch, etc). See the list of sections in Debian Policy 2.4; >> it seems that the webpage needs to be updated. > > I also thought 'education' was a valid section: lintian doesn't complain, > Synaptic shows a "friendly" name translated to my language for that section, > vim doesn't mark it in red, and Ubuntu has some packages in that section. > And the Debian Policy mentions that section indeed. > Should I leave it in 'education', or should I change it? Maybe to 'java', or > 'electronics' which is also a good choice. It's probably better to change.
Ok. I will let you decide. However, see the cons: - Your package won't be showed in unstable list[1]. - If your package is rejected, maybe we won't have time to reupload before the Jessie freezy. [1] https://packages.debian.org/unstable I think that more important that the section is the word 'education' in long description. >> 3. d/copyright: >> - You must list all authors and licenses in thos file. Use the >> command 'egrep -sriA25 '(public domain|copyright)' *' to help you. > > I was missing the copyrights for the files in cmake/Modules/, and I think > that's all. I don't remember but I will recheck when you upload to mentors. > By "authors" you mean the names/emails of the people/companies that appear > in the copyright notices of the source files, right? Yes. > The copyright of cmake/Modules/UseLATEX.cmake caused me some confusion, > though. But I found a package in Ubuntu (feel++) that uses that file, so it > should be ok. My suggestion: Files: cmake/Modules/UseLATEX.cmake Copyright: 2004 Sandia Corporation, by Kenneth Moreland <kmo...@sandia.gov> Comment: version 1.10.4 License: Contract_DE-AC04-94AL85000 License: Contract_DE-AC04-94AL85000 Under the terms of Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000, there is a non-exclusive license for use of this work by or on behalf of the U.S. Government. . Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. >> - From Debian policy[2]: >> >> "Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the >> Artistic license, the GNU GPL (versions 1, 2, or 3), the GNU LGPL >> (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) should >> refer to the corresponding files under >> /usr/share/common-licenses,[ >> 119] rather than quoting them in the >> copyright file." >> >> - I suggest you to use the conventional license texts provided by >> Debian, when applicable. These text are available at >> /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/licenses/. > > But the template texts there for those licenses also include a "short > summary" of the licenses, before the pointer to the full text. > Should I remove that and put only the pointer? No. The point is use the conventional texts. As an example, see the differences between /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/licenses/gpl2 and your text. >> 5.d/links: I didn't understand your intend with this file. > > The package installs some PDF manuals to /usr/share/drmips/doc/, and the > program searches for them in that place (using a relative path). > The link is just so the manuals are also accessible from /usr/share/doc/, > the usual place in Linux for documentation. > Should I remove the link? It is a bit strange. I suggest change the source code as upstream or make a patch for CMakeLists.txt to search in standard place. > Some additional questions: > * Should the Priority in debian/control be 'optional' or 'extra'? Optional. From Debian Policy: "extra: This contains all packages that conflict with others with required, important, standard or optional priorities, or are only likely to be useful if you already know what they are or have specialized requirements (such as packages containing only detached debugging symbols)". > * Should the urgency in debian/changelog be 'low' or 'medium'? (the default > was changed recently, I think) For the first upload (new package) use low. Cheers, Eriberto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
