On Sep 2, 2010, at 4:06 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 09:38 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 01:16:03 (CEST), Roman Haefeli wrote:
Hi all
I checked in my first package. I tried to follow - where possible
- very
closely to pd-motex, which has been already uploaded.
I would be glad if someone could have a look at it.
FYI: It is using what I believe is called short-form dh.
indeed, it is.
I've taken a quick look at the package,
it's a really small package and
rather easy to review.
Packagingwise, I think it is fine, but I'm umcomfortable with the two
patches. First, please use the patch metadata as described in
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/.
But as for the actual patches, I'm rather uncomfortable with
them. The add-license patch adds the complete text of the GPL. I'm
not
sure how the ftpteam thinks about it, but to me it feels very
strange. Is upstream aware of the problem, can't they just reissue
the
tarball with the complete license text? Moreover, quoting the part
"How
to Apply These Term to Your New Programs" is usually also helpful.
I'd be more comfortable if the GPL text was just included in debian/,
read, as non-patch, but still, I really think this file should be
part
of the orig.tar.gz.
The reason why I added the LICENSE file in the first place is because
the Makefile is hardcoded to install it. Probably I shouldn't have
done
it as a patch. But then again in the thread about pd-motex people
agreed
that it would be better to create a symlink to the respective license
in /usr/share/common-licenses/.
So actually, I could remove "install LICENSE" line in the Makefile
which
makes the add-license.patch obsolete and let debian/rules do the
symlink and the result will be the same. What do you think?
So another approach would be to repackage the
tarball to just include the COPYING file. While we are at it, we
could
also use the new Makefile and get rid of the other patch.
Instead of using a quilt patch should I simply replace the Makefile
with
the new one and check that into the master branch?
Roman
Roman,
Since you now have upstream commit access, I would fix the Makefile
and LICENSE.txt problems in the pure-data SVN, then once that's
working, we can release a tarball on the pure-data sourceforge page.
Then the debian packaging becomes much simpler, like the other Pd
packages based on this Makefile template (pd-motex, pd-pmpd, etc).
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and
this we should do freely and generously. - Benjamin Franklin
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
