Dmitry, On Monday, September 16, 2024 1:47:14 PM MST Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > gcc-14-doc has been uploaded by Bastian German (BTW, Bastian, thank > you) and is currently waiting for the NEW processing. > I don't know what are his plans for gcc-doc-defaults.
OK. If you will push changes to Salsa for the small issues identified below (and add an entry for yourself to debian/copyright under debian/*) I will sponsor the package. Thank you for your good packaging work. > > On Monday, September 16, 2024 1:31:16 PM MST Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > Soren, > > > > > > On Mon, 16 Sept 2024 at 22:27, Soren Stoutner <so...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > debian/source/format lists this package as 3.0 (native). Is Debian the > > > > upstream for this package? > > > > > > Yes, see how gcc-defaults handle the same case. > > > > > > > You should delete the debian/compat file as it is deprecated. > > > > > > > > In debian/control you should build-depend on "debhelper (= 13)". > > > > > > Ack. > > > > > > > You should add "Rules-Requires-Root: no” to debian/control (I assume you > > > > don’t need root to build this package). > > > > > > Ack. > > > > > > > As an example, see: > > > > > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/soren/privacybrowser/-/blob/master/debian/ > > > > control? > > > > > > ref_type=heads > > > > > > > > debian/copyright says: > > > > > > > > Source: <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.9.1/gcc-4.9.1.tar.bz2>, notice > > > > > > > > that this package only contains several license files. > > > > > > > > Is that current? > > > > > > Yes, we haven't been updating it since that time, it wasn't required. > > > > > > > Comment: > > > > This package was put together by Nikita V. Youshchenko > > > > <yo...@debian.org> > > > > on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:34:35 +0400. > > > > . > > > > Copyright (C) 2006, Nikita V. Youshchenko <yo...@debian.org> > > > > > > > > This looks obsolete (replaced by the debian/* entry). > > > > > > Ack. > > > > > > > Can you give me a little bit of background on why parts of this package > > > > are > > > > > > non-free? I am having a hard time imagining that the Free Software > > > > Foundation released a bunch of documentation that isn’t DFSG-free. > > > > > > The documentation is released under GFDL with invariant sections. It's > > > considered non-DFSG-free. > > > > -- > > Soren Stoutner > > so...@debian.org -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
