Control: tags -1 -moreinfo > I believe 'lighthttpd' is not yet ready for sponsorship at this time. Could > the > contributor rectify one of more of the raised issues.
FYI: the name of the software is 'lighttpd', which is a portmanteau of 'light' and 'httpd. The name has *never* been 'lighthttpd'. This is contradictory: > There is no > obligation on behalf of the submitter to make any alterations based upon > information provided in the review. with this: > Once updated to your satisfaction and a new upload done, please remove the > 'moreinfo' tag on the Request For Sponsorship (RFS) bug report. You cut-n-paste three lintian issues, two pedantic, and concluded that the package is not ready for sponsorship. Why not? PLEASE NOTE: **none** of the issues you raised are reported on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/lighttpd PLEASE NOTE: **all** of the issues you raised are present in the prior lighttpd package. Why is this suddenly a blocker to release rather than suggestions for a future release? If the reason is using an older debhelper version, then please state the blocking issue separately from all the rest of the noise. In any case, one issue appears to me to be a false positive: > I: lighttpd source: rules-silently-require-root lighttpd (www-data:www-data) > var/cache/lighttpd/ [debian/control:41] > N: Visibility: info This release migrates to use debputy to remove the need for fakeroot. The contribution is from Niels Thykier. If something is amiss, then I kindly request DD assistance in resolving this. Instead, I think this is a bug in the lintian script, since lighttpd debian/control line 41 says: Rules-Requires-Root: no > 3. Licenses [4]: Issue > > philwyett@ks-tarkin:~/Development/builder/debian/lighttpd$ lrc > en: Versions: recon '3.4' check '3.3.9-1' > > Parsing Source Tree .... > Reading d/copyright .... > Missing Files: Paragraph for debian/ > Running licensecheck .... > > d/copyright | licensecheck > > BSD-3-clause | GPL-1 debian/lighty-enable-mod > > File states: > > # You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public > # License[1] or the Artistic License[2]. This is not reported on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/lighttpd This is newly reported, as this file has been part of the lighttpd debian package circa 2006. I have pushed changes to attempt to address the pedantic issues raised.
