Hello Nicholas, > Sorry, my mistake. I meant to write "debian/copyright". One or more > entries in the copyright file conflicts with upstream evidence.
No problem, I think I found what you were referring to and corrected our copyright, upstream is right. I documented the changes in the changelog. > > > Would you please push your work to your personal Salsa namespace (fork > > > relationship optional), and provide the link to the repo? https://salsa.debian.org/alexandru_mihail/mini-httpd Forked from master of: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mini-httpd > speaking these patch fixups aren't release critical, and you can ignore > them if you'd like. I will fix them, it's fine :) Also, I uploaded again to mentors last night. Thanks and farewell, Alexandru ------- Original Message ------- On Saturday, June 10th, 2023 at 6:52 PM, Nicholas D Steeves <nstee...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alexandru, > > Alexandru Mihail alexandru_mih...@protonmail.ch writes: > > > > 2. I found an inaccuracy in the upstream sections of debian/changelog; > > > please fix it. Plain old grep or manual header check should be enough > > > to spot this. > > > > Can you please elaborate a bit ? Are you referring to my changelog entry or > > any mistakes in upstream.changelog or older debian/changelog entries ? > > > Sorry, my mistake. I meant to write "debian/copyright". One or more > entries in the copyright file conflicts with upstream evidence. Our > obligation is to accurately represent upstream's claims; however, if you > think the existing state better represents reality, and that upstream's > copy is inaccurate, then please do something like 1. Correct our copy of > upstream's claims. 2. Make a note about how the file previously > contained a different claim, which you think is correct, and write why. > The field that is used for this can be (quickly) found in this > documentation: > > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ > > > > 3. Do the patches have accurate filenames, subjects, and synopses? > > > Adopting a package is the perfect time to fix anything misleading. > > > > Most of them are fine, I'd change the filename of "0006-fix-makefile", a > > bit too generic, it changes some install dirs and adds -lssl to a compile > > target, not exactly something obvious when you read "fix-makefile". I'll > > come up with a better name. > > > I agree most are fine, and yes the one you've pointed out could be > nicer. The one I'm concerned about has a subject that doesn't appear to > describe what the patch actually does, which is misleading. Strictly > speaking these patch fixups aren't release critical, and you can ignore > them if you'd like. > > > > Would you please push your work to your personal Salsa namespace (fork > > > relationship optional), and provide the link to the repo? This way I > > > Will do, it was a very busy week :) > > > No worries :) > > > > P.S. It seems like Debian's copy might be the defacto upstream, as of > > > eight years ago, when someone wrote we were "doing a good job" > > > maintaining mini_httpd. > > > Hah, I've heard the same thing from an OpenWRT maintainer a few years > > > ago. We're their defacto upstream as well (and any OpenWRT based router > > > firmwares such as Tomato, etc etc). Long live the red spiral, I guess :) > > > Wow, I guess it's true then, and that your work will benefit more people > than anticipated! This makes me think of the Civil Infrastructure > Platform > (https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/civilinfrastructureplatform/2017-08-cip-debconf-r5.pdf) > > > Have a great day, > > > Likewise, you too! > Nicholas
