Re: [RFS] MintPy packaging
Dear Bas,
Il 26/06/22 21:45, Sebastiaan Couwenberg ha scritto:
On 5/15/22 09:31, Antonio Valentino wrote:
The package for mintpy still needs some work, but, for a proper
testing, I would like to have all dependencies are in the archive.
The dependencies are now in the archive and on the mirrors enabling
package builds without custom repos for those.
With the recent update of lintian, the overrides need to be updated and
new issues need to be reviewed.
I haven't had time for an extensive review yet, but I did notice the
long list of dependencies for the binary package which shouldn't be
required as ${python3:Depends} and dh_python3 should take care of those
using setup.py install_requires. Am I missing something that explains
the hardcoded list of dependencies?
The link overload in the extended description is also not great.
GFDL license is considered non-free when it contains invariant sections,
does this apply to MintPy?
https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#GNU_Free_Documentation_License_.28GFDL.29
As far as I can understand it is not the case for mintpy.
The wiki-2.0.cpt file, the only one with GFDL license, includes the a
license notice clearly stating
...
# any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
# Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A
...
By the way I have also checked that the "wiki-2.0.cpt" is never used
directly in the code and it can be easily removed.
If you think that it is safer to remove it, please let me know.
Otherwise I think that the rest of the comments raised in your review
have been addressed, so please fee free to go on with a final review and
upload.
cheers
--
Antonio Valentino
Reply to: