On 07/17/2014 06:40 PM, Harald Dunkel wrote: > On 07/16/14 17:56, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> >> BTW, it feels weird that the package build-depends on debhelper when it >> really is using CDBS. The debian/copyright is also quite wrong, as it >> doesn't include the copyright notice for the GPL v2 (and I believe >> that's mandatory, right?). Not commenting on the fact that it's still >> using the format 1.0 without debian/source/format file, etc. In other >> words, I agree that this package is in the need for a bit more care. >> > > I can send you another NMU, if you are interested?
Well, only if it fixes RC bugs, if you provided a debdiff, and gave enough time to the current package maintainer to fix it himself. "Enough time" is generally considered as 1 month in Debian. > There is also a new upstream version, but I would guess this is beyond > scope for an NMU? Generally, it's indeed out of scope. Unless there's strong motivations behind switching to a new upstream release (like: fixing an RC bug, fixing another package RC bug that depends on the new upstream release, or stuff like that). > The copyright file containes a pointer to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2. > Is this insufficient? Unfortunately, it's not. You need the copyright notice. I wont point to a specific package, there's so many in Debian that it shouldn't be hard to find. I believe this could be included in an NMU (though it's probably a waste of time to NMU just for this). Thomas P.S: I'm registered to the list, don't CC me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53c883c2.7030...@debian.org
