Thanks to all the people who've provided feedback about my packaging efforts, particularly on reSIProcate
http://mentors.debian.net/package/resiprocate I've tried to do all the right things by the policies, etc, but given the nature of the package, it is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole: debian/copyright: - I've now re-done this as DEP-5: but given the project has so many modules each with different contributors and license terms, have I covered this adequately? - I've tried to cover the most restrictive license terms (the Vovida license and OpenSSL) at the top of debian/copyright, although there are contributions under less restrictive terms elsewhere in the project. Is this sufficient effort? package naming: - the reTurn component would imply a package called `return', which is very generic, so I've now renamed it. - package named `libresiprocate-1.8' is not a single lib, it is a group of libs - this approach is OK? lintian-overrides: - there were many issues with false-positives from hardening and also from shlib dev links, have I used the lintian-overrides appropriately in this case? cdbs to debhelper: - I've converted to debhelper (>= 9) and multiarch - I just adapted debian/rules, debian/control and debian/compat - this is my first multiarch package - does it appear to be done correctly? -- 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/4fbced5e.4070...@pocock.com.au
