El 27/06/12 12:48, Benoît Knecht escribió: > I just meant that you should use something like opts=dversionmangle (see > uscan(1)) so that uscan would remove the "+20120619git27g55c0f4e" part > before comparing the debian version with the upstream one. But if you're > not going to package snapshot versions on a regular basis, maybe that's > not necessary.
Ok, I will take a look again that option of the watch file, I have never seen before. I'll read carefully uscan man. > Yeah, it seems best to discuss it with upstream. Regarding the GPL-3 for > the packaging, since it's incompatible with the GPL-2, it would be much > better if you agreed to GPL-2+ for debian/*; that way, the source > package as a whole can be considered GPL-2. I don't know if there is a reason behind their choice of GPL-2 instead GPL-3... but I can ask them. If they prefer keeping on GPL-2, I can accept GPL-2+ for debian/* if it simplifies the licensing issues of the whole package. > From a quick look at the CMakeLists.txt, it seems that cppunit needs to > be installed in order for the test suite to be built (so I guess you > should Build-Depend on libcppunit-dev). Not sure if it means a simple > "make test" would run the test suite then; looks like you'd have to run > "./unittest" by hand. I have asked to upstream. Waiting their response about it, copyright holders and man page issues and keep you informed about all of these. > You don't have to increase the debian version until it actually gets > into the archive. Some people prefer to do so anyway, but that's > essentially a matter of taste (just provide a link to the .dsc file > every time you update the package). Seems to me that the common practice > is to keep the same debian version throughout the RFS process though. Ok, I agree with you. I will keep the same debian version. Best regards -- José Luis Segura Lucas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
