Jaromil wrote: > i've packed a new upstream version of tomb and packaged it with some > mentored corrections. it is now lintian clean and can be attained > from http://apt.dyne.org/debian > > deb http://apt.dyne.org/debian stable main > > here below i'll reply to a few standing issues: > > On Tue, 08 Feb 2011, Benoît Knecht wrote: > > > Check your build dependencies, and also note that you shouldn't > > explicitly depend on libraries: linking is automatically detected > > and the necessary libraries are added to ${shlibs:Depends}. > > thanks, this was explained to me also by another mentor (antonio@dyne)
I still cannot build it in a clean chroot, with the same error as before. Did you try building it with pbuilder? > > Another suggestion: since DEP-5 [2] is probably going to become > > policy, it's recommended to use this format for the debian/copyright > > file in new packages. > > [2] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ > > i've read DEP-5 with interest. i find it a very good improvement to > the present system! looking forward to use it in future. i guess is > working with quilt 3.0 and git-buildpackage? that's what i'm happily > using.. Yes, sure, it doesn't depend on the build system or package format. The copyright file is just copied in the package. > > Also, your debian/patches/debian-changes-0.9.1-1 patch is creating > > several files, and making a bunch of other changes; since you're > > upstream, it doesn't seem like it's intended. > > i believe you are talking about the diff that git-buildpackage > generates against my "debian-orig0" branch? that is done automatically > and i'm comfortably storing some modifications to the master branch > which i do only for debian (like installation of menu files from > configure rather than from "dirty" shellscripts) Yes, I'm talking about that file. I know that git-buildpackage generates it automatically, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try and improve it. First of all, creating an entire file in a patch (like you're doing with doc/tomb-open.1 and other man pages) is not such a good idea. Better put the file in debian/ and install it from there (or better yet, include them upstream since _you_ are upstream). Then you're making some changes to some Makefile.am files; you should document those in the patch header and the changelog. > > Finally, "licensecheck -r tomb-0.9.1" reports some missing or > > incomplete copyright headers; as upstream you can easily fix those. > > i've tried licensecheck myself, but it keeps reporting missing license > in .c files where the license is actually included in the header > comment. > > i suspect the error consists in the fact licensecheck doesn't > tolerates change in spaces and justification of default license texts, > since i'm frequently using the emacs justification on text in files. > > i guess licensecheck should be enhanced to be more fexible.. besides > that, all files in distributed tomb upstream and debian package have a > license notice. You're right about src/tomb-status.c, I've no idea why it doesn't detect the license header. In src/tomb-askpass.c however, there's no copyright, just the license (who's the author?), and the FSF address is wrong. Cheers, -- Benoît Knecht -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110211110809.ga...@debian.lan
