2018-02-03 20:12 GMT+08:00 Tobias Frost <t...@debian.org>: > - d/changelog: > As this is not an ITP (where no history is available), re-introduction > has a history and you need to continue writing it. In other words: > Please document the changes you have made to the packaging since the > last upload to Debian.
I did include the old changelogs. Did I fat-fingered? > - d/control: > The versions of the B-D on gobject-introspection, valac and libgtk-3-dev > can be dropped, as even oldstable has it. OK. > - d/copyright > cmake/ParseArguments.cmake -> I cannot see why this is BSD-2? > Please expand :) If my point is true: > Do we need to remove this file because of unknown license? CC-BY-2.5 as shown in wiki. > lib/Widgets/ModeButton.vala -> Copyright years are 2008-2013 for all > copyrght holders. > > lib/Services/ContractorProxy.vala -> Years wrong, file header says 2011-2013 These lines come from original debian/ provided by upstream. I believe they track their files better than me. > New stuff: > - There is now Boyuan Yang as 2nd uploader. Can you expand on you have > added him? This package is packed as part of effort to introduce DDE into Debian (see https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-deepin/pkg-deepin.git/plain/depgraph/pkg-deepin-dep.svg ), thus it is co-maintained. And what do you mean by "expand on"? > Misc: > - On salsa, I think you can delete the branch deb-packaging, can't you? These are upstream's packaging scripts. I'd like to respect any (further) changes made by upstream. > - cmake/ParseArguments.cmake --> The wiki page in the header of the file says > this may be obsolete and quote: "If you are using CMake 2.8.3 or newer > please > use the CMakeParseArguments macro provided by the default CMake installation > instead of the code below." Please file that upstream and try to patch > the build so that the cmake file from cmake is used. Yes, maybe an issue to upstream. Still it works even with it. Maybe I can ask them to remove it in the next release... > Nothing to change, but hint for future packaging: > You d/copyright is more verbose that it needs to be: It is perfectly > fine to combine Files: sections sharing the same license, even if > the authors / copyright years are not always the same. > > This will ease work for people reviewing > > Hard to explain by words, so a virtual example: > > Files: * > Copyright: 2015,2018 AuthorA <a...@example.org> > License: GPL > > Files: B > Copyright: 2017,2018 AuthorB <a...@example.org> > License: GPL > > Files: C > Copyright: 2016,2017 AuthorA <a...@example.org> > 2016,2017 AuthorB <b...@example.org> > License: GPL > > can be simply written as: > > Files: * > Copyright: 2015,2016-2018 AuthorA <a...@example.org> > 2017-2018 AuthorB <b...@example.org > License: GPL The original copyright did exactly this way combining everything into a single *. I think a verbose copyright won't harm. Of course other uploaders can have different opinions. But just keep it untouched... The package has re-uploaded to mentors.d.o Thanks for your suggestions and help.
