Hi Evgeny, On 2022-09-29 18:18, Evgeny Posenitskiy wrote: > Thank you for the prompt and detailed reply!
Thanks for prompt action! I will omit parts of your reply that are done. >> 3. I see your debian/copyright is very detailed. This is not a >> disadvantage, but maintaining such level of details takes much time. For >> your package it might be enough to just have the following: > > In the past, I followed the debmake manual from the Debian website > (https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debmake-doc/ch08.en.html#autotools-single) > and the detailed copyright file was produced somewhere along the way. Don't get me wrong, detailed is usually better than not. However, very detailed debian/copyright might be difficult to maintain moving forward. I almost never mention autoconf-generated files in debian/copyright. > I applied your changes, so now there is the BSD-3 license on all files > except the ax_lib_hdf5.m4 and ax_pkg_swig.n4 macros which I copied from > the Autoconf archive. If you think that these licences can be removed > too - please let me know and I will do it. Thanks, I think debian/copyright is fine as is now. >> In fact, it might be good to exclude them from the distribution tarball >> altogether as they are regenerated from source anyway. > > The Autoconf files were placed in the tarball automatically, I have not > written any additional macros for that. > In general, I trust Autotools when it comes to the distribution tarballs. > However, if you think that Autoconf-generated files should be removed - > please let me know. Right. Since autoconf-generated files are removed and regenerated during build, a cleanroom approach of dropping them from the tarball looks tempting to me. To do so, one can introduce Files-Excluded stanza in debian/copyright to have these files excluded. But this is not mandatory, your package is fine as it is now. Some additional comments after building your package: 4. lintian errors about source-is-missing for HTML files. If these files are not generated from some precursor inputs, then this warning is false positive and should be silenced using lintian override. You may take [1] for example. If these files are generated, then it would be better to exclude them from the tarball and regenerate during build. 5. lintian warns about extended-description-contains-empty-paragraph. This means you should remove the initial description line which consists of a single '.' (for both binary packages) 6. Since you are willing to team-maintain the package in Debichem, debian/control has to show it in Maintainer and Uploaders fields. You may look at [2]. 7. Vcs-* fields in debian/control should point to correct URLs on salsa. 8. In debian/changelog: UNRELEASED -> unstable And that's about it. Having these issues fixed, the package can be uploaded. [1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/python-weblogo/-/blob/master/debian/source/lintian-overrides [2] https://sources.debian.org/src/promod3/3.2.1%2Bds-5/debian/control/ Best, Andrius
