Hello Daniel, thank your for your note I like to reply to.
* To name "the thing". Thankfully, there is `gem2deb` to collect and organize the relevant data from rubygems and `ruby-mdl` is the name suggested by this implementation. I don't mind the result by `gem2deb` requires additional edit (some of the points addressed by the documentation), perhaps including a new name *of the package* in Debian. (E.g., in its documentation, the validator `pytest` for Python is called by `pytest`. With the advent of Python 3, Debian & Ubuntu family currently name it `python3-pytest` as package, and the call from the CLI is `pytest-3` regardless if there (still) is some remain of Python 2 in the hosting installation, or not.) Open to an adjustment, I like `ruby-mdl` as package name because it states the language of implementation, hence a pattern which allows others an implementation in their language of choice (e.g., `python3-markdownlint`). It equally is a short name and `mdl` already shows the call sign from the CLI. On the other hand, `markdownlinter` would introduce a name different to the project's name .and. part of the address on GitHub. * Split into a binary part and a library part. Because `ruby-mdl` is the first time I package a .deb, this exceeds my expertise. Do you recommend a particular resource to get familiar with this procedure? Likely related to this suggest is the information (i.e., low severity) `application-in-library-section` broadcast by `lintian`, prior signing the changes file and to engaging `dput mentors`. * Joining the Debian Ruby team. OK, it is convincing this could facilitate much; possibly including an adjustment of the name space (if it is an issue). I file a separate petition of admission to the group (*beyond* the subscription to the mailing list). * The copyright issue. For one I assume each contribution to `markdownlint` recognizes the choice for MIT because the pick for a license known to GitHub simultaneously adds the tag to the web site .and. a `LICENSE.txt` to the project for you. For two, the project discerns between contributors and maintainers (to `markdownlint`; three considered active [Mark Harrison no longer is one of them]) without an explicit note I spot (so far) "for any contribution to us, you transfer your copyright to us" as with publishers. Because copyright may differ by locale, I assumed it were better to err and to list all, than omitting one. (Because the relevant git archaeology was/is relayed to two scripts to put elsewhere, the extraction doesn't take much time, either.) Regards, Norwid
