Putting back the mailing list in the loop. Sorry for the duplicate Andreas.
Andreas Tille, on 2020-04-11 18:37:27 +0200: > Hi Étienne, > > thanks a lot for your work on this package. Hi Andreas, and thanks for time you take reviewing this too. > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 04:47:18PM +0200, Étienne Mollier wrote: > > The package is now in a shape I'm happy with. :) > > Its nice to be happy with the own work. ;-) > > I hope if I do not spoil your happiness if I'm a bit picky here. No matter what, I have, and I will have, plenty to learn. ;) > The latest Standards-Version is 4.5.0. You can check this here: > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/debian-policy > > (only the first three digits are relevant thus we do not use 4.5.0.1) Noted, I updated the debian/control accordingly. > The autopkgtest is failing: > > cp: cannot stat '/usr/share/doc/prinseq-lite/examples/*': No such file or > directory > autopkgtest [16:25:11]: test run-unit-test: -----------------------] > autopkgtest [16:25:11]: test run-unit-test: - - - - - - - - - - results - - > - - - - - - - - > > When following the Debian Med scheme to make the autopkgtest user > runnable you need to install the example data into the binary package > as example. My bad, I missed the "s" to copy example/ into : /usr/share/doc/prinseq-lite/examples Should be updated accordingly in debian/rules, and the doc-base when lintian complained about it... > You specify > Architecture: any > but as far as I can see it should be > Architecture: all > since its just Perl Noted, I updated the debian/changelog to fit architecture specification. > Finally d/copyright should be cleaned up. The Comment should be removed (if > you > have done what it says ;-)) > Moreover the typical snippet for GPL-3+ is missing. You need to provide an > extra "License: GPL-3+" paragraph - you'll find lots of examples on your > Debian system. > > Feel free to ask if you have any questions to my remarks. Pretty much like a lot of us here I guess, I'm half comfortable with legal components, so wouldn't be against seeing this part being double-checked actually. I spent some time into Dpkg::Copyright::Scanner(3pm) to get the copyright in a seemingly adequate shape, and tried a few rounds of `cme update dpkg-copyright` to see how it behaves (as provided in Sid, if that is worth mentioning) but comments lasted until I remove them manually. You don't mind if I tried to keep the legal babbling as short as seems reasonably possible ? (well, at least with regards to what the cme model accepts...) I have to write down official authorizations by hand to fullfill my groceries duty, since I have no printer; so, I'm building up some kind of trauma... > Thanks again You're welcome, Kind Regards, -- Étienne Mollier <etienne.moll...@mailoo.org> Fingerprint: 5ab1 4edf 63bb ccff 8b54 2fa9 59da 56fe fff3 882d Help find cures against the Covid-19 ! Give CPU cycles: * Rosetta@home: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/ * Folding@home: https://foldingathome.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
