Re: sfcgal package for postgis and others
> Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> Showstopper is not really the word, but some improvements to the
>> copyright should still be made.
>
> Wow. Do we really need to spend even more time in documenting the
> copyright
> of files which are neighter used nor needed anymore?
Unfortunately yes. Because as I've mentioned before the debian/copyright
file is one of the most important files to get right, otherwise your
package won't be accepted into the archive.
> Maybee I should just add a patch so gets rid of the patches directory
> alltogether to clean up this mess in a more easy and propper way :)
Repacking the upstream tarball is an option, but it's not preferred over
documenting the license & copyright information in the debian/copyright
file.
It can take quite some time to get this right initially (I've spent many
hours updating the copyright file for qgis for instance), but afterwards
you only need to incorporate the changes in subsequent new upstream
releases.
Please don't give up now, you're very close to completing the packaging.
Kind Regards,
Bas
Reply to: