Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Packages needing some action before freeze
Am 9. Januar 2017 10:27:25 MEZ schrieb "Sébastien Villemot" <sebastien@debian.org>:
>Le lundi 09 janvier 2017 à 10:21 +0100, Sébastien Villemot a écrit :
>> Le dimanche 08 janvier 2017 à 14:51 +0100, Rafael Laboissière a écrit
>:
>> > * Oliver Heimlich <oheim@posteo.de> [2017-01-08 13:54]:
>> >
>> > > The release is currently stalled upstream [1], because the
>Octave-Forge
>> > > admin is absent (probably on vacation, I don't know).
>> > >
>> > > Would you mind if I pushed version 2.1.0, so that we can identify
>
>> > > RC-bugs in Debian? I have already been able to “pdebuild” a
>Debian
>> > > package for amd64, but there might be problems with other
>architectures
>> > > which the Debian build infrastructure might find.
>> >
>> > Assuming that version 2.1.0 will eventually be released, I do not
>> > think that releasing 2.1.0-1 to unstable is a inappropriate. Let
>us
>> > see what the other members do the DOG think, though.
>>
>> I am ok with this solution, as long as the Debian tarball is exactly
>the
>> same (bit-to-bit) as the one that will be released through Forge.
>>
>> If that condition cannot be met, I am not sure that it is a good idea
>to
>> upload 2.1.0 to Debian. We are not supposed to upload a tarball that
>is
>> different from upstream, except in cases where there is no other
>> solution (for example when removing non-free stuff, or when upstream
>has
>> only a VCS and does not ship a tarball).
>
>I forgot to mention that an acceptable solution could be also be to
>upload a custom tarball built from git, with a version number such as
>2.1.0~git2381caf.
>
>--
> .''`. Sébastien Villemot
>: :' : Debian Developer
>`. `' http://sebastien.villemot.name
> `- GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pkg-octave-devel mailing list
>Pkg-octave-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
>http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-octave-devel
Problem solved, the release has been made upstream. Could you please review my changes to d/copyright?
1. The bundled crlibm library mentions the "lesser" gpl version 2, which AFAIK doesn't exist and should be version 2.1 (cf. COPYING).
2. Most files don't contain a correct copyright statement and I have cross-checked those which mention a specific author with the origial git commit log to verify the authors and to come up with a copyright year. Remaining files fall into the src/crlibm/* category and I have listed all documented authors as copyright holders.
3. Lintian complains about an outdated FSF address. Should this be corrected?
Thanks,
Oliver
Reply to: