-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Rafael--
I think i've addressed all these concerns now. i've published 3.01-2
into my apt repository, for your examination. My powerpc build
machine is down right now, so 3.01-2 is only published for arm and
i386 at the moment.
On Wed 2007-03-14 12:49:35 -0400, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * debian/rules:
> + Remove commented lines with dh_* commands
> + Add proper header with copyright notice and license terms
this is done. i tend to get confused with the header requirements for
mostly-auto-generated files. If you think what i've got there is
inappropriate, i'm open to further suggestions.
> * debian/control:
> + Put my name and email address in the Uploaders field
> + Drop ${misc:Depends} from Depends
> + Reference the upstream website according to the guidelines in section
> 6.2.4 of the Debian Developer's Reference [1]. Also, although it is
> nice to put the name of the upstream author in the Description, this is
> not a common practice in Debian.
Done. i think you taught me the upstream website reference on the
ttf-fifthhorseman-dkg-handwriting package. Sorry to have not retained
it properly.
I've also added a paragraph about the keybindings, since that's one of
the salient features of tweak. It also helps tweak show up if
someone does "apt-cache search emacs hex" :)
> * debian/menu:
> + This file is useless without a call to dh_installmenu in debian/rules
> + At any rate, the menu entry does not work, because tweak needs a file
> name as argument. You might add a tweak-wrapper script to the package
> (example attached below) and update the debian/menu file accordingly.
Good call. i've created tweak-wrapper as a variant of your
recommendation. I also linked in tweak-wrapper.1.gz to tweak.1.gz,
since i don't think it warrants its own man page.
> * debian/dirs:
> + This file seems to be useless. Remove it.
whoops! done.
> * Makefile:
> + You seem to have patched the upstream Makefile and the differences
> appear in the diff.gz file. Doing this is highly discouraged, because
> updating to a subsequent version is error prone. You should try to get
> your patch (or a variant of it) applied upstream. In the meanwhile, you
> have two options:
> 1) Use a patch management system (such as dpatch, quilt, or CDBS'
> simple-patchsys; I prefer the later because I am a CDBS adept).
> 2) Call make with the appropriate PREFIX and MANDIR settings in the
> command line
i've gone with option 2, since it seems like the simplest approach for
a tool that doesn't need patching otherwise. unintrusive packaging is
a good thing.
> + Most of the *.c files, as well as the *.but and *.h files are lacking
> copyright notice and licensing terms. We can assume that they are the
> same as in LICENCE, but the Debian standards require that every file
> must have those. Your package may be rejected due to that. Please, ask
> the upstream author to fix this.
I spoke with Simon about this via e-mail, and he's understandably
reluctant to make changes to 13 files in a relatively small package to
satisfy a potentially theoretical concern, especially when LICENCE
seems pretty clear-cut. Can you give me a reference to policy which
states that *every* file must include a copyright notice and licensing
information? If the requirement is only that all the files must be
properly licensed, i think it's clear that they are, despite not
including any internal notice.
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at
Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:56:52 +0000, Simon Tatham wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>> (it's pretty clear that LICENCE is intended to cover everything in
>> the package)
>
> Just in case there's any lingering doubt: you and your sponsor are,
> of course, both correct in this assumption.
I think i have Simon's permission to forward the full e-mail, so i can
send it on to you or to this bug if you'd prefer.
I made one other change: i included Simon's generated btree.html in
docs/, since it seems relevant, small, and unobtrusive.
On Wed 2007-03-14 12:49:35 -0400, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> If you generate a new version of the package, you could give it the version
> number 3.01-2 and run "debuild -sa -v3.01-0", such that both the orig.tar.gz
> file name and the appropriate Closes: header appear in the *.changes file.
I did this, but the .changes file doesn't get published to the apt
repository via reprepro, afaict. Do you want me to send it on
separately? Or is it published in some obscure way by reprepro that
i'm missing?
Thanks again for your prompt help with this package, Rafael.
--dkg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQFF+HAKiXTlFKVLY2URAnAiAKCl4VfjYxCPdK7snLUVKscQnqVMJACgpMKJ
cyFCH9ausnELgu55g1q3M0g=
=66fr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
