> Due to the fact that its a GPL license you have the possibility to > create a symlink to the file in /u/s/common-licenes. > Or patch bluemindo. First choice probably preferrable.
Done, but not sure this is the cleanest way. > Hm. Why don't you use the way thats written down in the CDBS docs [1]? > Is there a special reason for your manual calling of dh_pysupport? > I also don't think that this is enough. Bluemindo does not provide a setup.py file, so I've done what the New Policy says [2]. > I see that you adopted the machine-parseable copyright format. So do you > like it? Yes, I like it. > However it seems still a bit bogus to me: > Most files use the GPL-3 as license so citing parts of the license > explicit is not needed and imho makes no sense, too. Additional you have > a "License.." block at the end of the file, which is possibly un-needed > (because the machine-parseable part replaces it) but in my opinion a > good approach, because I really prefer to still have a human-readable > part as long as there is no parser that makes the file more > human-readable by people who are not so technical experienced. > > So to make your copyright perfect: > - Remove license excerpts for well known licenses > - Include complete license information for the PSF, because it is not in > /u/s/common-licenses > - Make the human readable part complete (e.g. re-add a Copyright part). Hm... The resulting file will be pretty large if I do so. The human readable part... Hm... I switched to the machine-parseable one because there weren't any 'official' way to do when there are multiple copyrights/licenses... I however made some modifications to debian/copyright. > > As the package provides a png file in the good place, can I use it? or > > do I have to make a xmp file? > > Well, the most window managers probably don't understand the PNG format, > so yes this is required. However you can do this automatically by > converting the file with convert and build-depending on imagemagick. Done, but like the COPYING symlink, I don't know if I have done it in a clean way. > Did you read the links I've posted? Its described in detail, there. > But to make it clear: > This file is for other people then you, so that they have a chance to > lookup how certain processes work with your package. E.g. for the > security team to read up, what they need to do, to get a fully patched > source, create new pages, remove patches. That is that people who > usually don't maintain your package and probably usually use other > methods (e.g. quilt and debhelper instead of CDBS and patchsys) have a > chance to update your package (for example due to a security issue). > > Whats missing from your file is a documented way to create a new patch. Should be enough, now, provided that cdbs-edit-patch is available. > > Compat is now 5. > > Yeah right, but you missed the depend in debian/control. It should be ok now. > It would be better to make two makefiles of the first one. So that > every patch is for exactly one change. BTW. please do not forget to > forward the patches upstream. The proposed seperating into two pages > also makes it easier for you if upstream integrates only one part of the > patch. The first patch is now splitted into two patches: one for $DESTDIR and one for permissions. However, I'm working with the upstream developer, and we'll apply the patches as soon we are sure all is fine with the package. > > I think Recommends are adequate. This packages aren't required to run > > bluemindo, but they are required to use several features. > > That sounds reasonable. But there is still a question that you should > clear: Are those features really common to the usual user of the > software? Is it someone one usually would expect? If yes, then > Recommends is fine, otherwise you should move such things to Suggests. I've moved one of them to Suggests. > > > - Description needs some overhaul. See [6] and [7]. Please also > > > check it for spelling or grammar errors. > > It should be a bit better, now. > > Not enough :-): > - The "A" in the short description is useles > - The enumeration in the description is confusing. > > Best Regards, > Patrick > > [1] https://perso.duckcorp.org/duck/cdbs-doc/cdbs-doc.xhtml#id2528674 [2] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython/NewPolicy#head-a9676f76c81944360eba13aa9bda1a7fcc7ad724
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
