Re: PostGIS 2.1.4
>> The Breaks/Replaces: liblwgeom-2.1.2 (<< 2.1.3+dfsg-2) can be dropped
>> now.
>
> Uh.. if somebody updates from that version, the new liblwgeom-2.1.4
> should still Break/Replace that one, no?
The Breaks/Replaces was only needed because different versions of the
liblwgeom-2.1.2 package contained conflicting files.
Now that the package is liblwgeom-2.1.4 there is no longer a conflict.
>> I've also changed liblwgeom-2.1.4.install & libpostgis-java.install to
>> use
>> 2* instead of the full version numbers
>
> Oh, that works? Nice!
Yes, wildcards are supported by dh_install, making life much easier. :)
>> mh_cleanpom caused a FTBFS in my builds because of the invalid
>> whitespace
>> at the start of java/jdbc/pom.xml. I added a patch to remove this
>> whitespace.
>>
>> http://git.linuxminded.nl/?p=pkg-grass/postgis;a=commitdiff;h=a86c253d21f982d0e1c81472ede745e6454a2b89
>
> Thanks. It didn't FTBFS on my testing machine. Which I'm just upgrading,
> now. It FTBFS on pgapt/jenkins.
Chances are good the FTBFS on pgapt is caused by mh_cleanpom if it uses
current sid build environments. I wanted to check the build logs, but I
don't have a login for the pgapt jenkins.
>> I'm currently working on updating the copyright file, but this is a lot
>> of
>> work that I haven't completed yet. That why I haven't pushed my changes
>> yet.
>
> Can we use more wildcards, there? And merge year ranges in copyright
> lines? Listing every file and every copyright time span separately seems
> neither practical nor useful to me. Or what's the policy, there?
We can use some more wildcards, but we also need a lot of separate license
specifications for individual files.
For doc/* CC-BY-SA-3.0 should be used, but there are some differently
licensed files under the doc directory (mostly Makefile templates).
The autotools script have different authors, copyright years and licenses,
requiring a lot of extra license specifications.
There has been some debate about what to document in the copyright file
triggered by the recently introduced lintian checks for dep5, that was
mostly about generated files from autotools.
The relevant documentation is:
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#copyright-field
And the related policy sections:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-dpkgcopyright
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-pkgcopyright
The policy doesn't specify much other that that the verbatim copyright and
license needs to be included.
The copyright-format specifiction says:
"The Copyright field collects all relevant copyright notices for the files
of this paragraph. Not all copyright notices may apply to every individual
file, and years of publication for one copyright holder may be gathered
together. For example, if file A has:"
So it's possible to more group files with the same license even if the
copyright is not identical between the files.
Kind Regards,
Bas
Reply to: