[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: prinseq(-lite), a dependency of virus seeker



Putting back the mailing list in the loop.  Sorry for the
duplicate Andreas.

Andreas Tille, on 2020-04-11 18:37:27 +0200:
> Hi Étienne,
> 
> thanks a lot for your work on this package.

Hi Andreas,

and thanks for time you take reviewing this too.

> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 04:47:18PM +0200, Étienne Mollier wrote:
> > The package is now in a shape I'm happy with.  :)
> 
> Its nice to be happy with the own work. ;-)
>  
> I hope if I do not spoil your happiness if I'm a bit picky here.

No matter what, I have, and I will have, plenty to learn.  ;)

> The latest Standards-Version is 4.5.0.  You can check this here:
> 
>    https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/debian-policy
> 
> (only the first three digits are relevant thus we do not use 4.5.0.1)

Noted, I updated the debian/control accordingly.

> The autopkgtest is failing:
> 
> cp: cannot stat '/usr/share/doc/prinseq-lite/examples/*': No such file or directory
> autopkgtest [16:25:11]: test run-unit-test: -----------------------]
> autopkgtest [16:25:11]: test run-unit-test:  - - - - - - - - - - results - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> When following the Debian Med scheme to make the autopkgtest user
> runnable you need to install the example data into the binary package
> as example.

My bad, I missed the "s" to copy example/ into :

	/usr/share/doc/prinseq-lite/examples

Should be updated accordingly in debian/rules, and the doc-base
when lintian complained about it...

> You specify
>    Architecture: any
> but as far as I can see it should be
>    Architecture: all
> since its just Perl

Noted, I updated the debian/changelog to fit architecture
specification.

> Finally d/copyright should be cleaned up.  The Comment should be removed (if you
> have done what it says ;-))
> Moreover the typical snippet for GPL-3+ is missing.  You need to provide an
> extra "License: GPL-3+" paragraph - you'll find lots of examples on your
> Debian system.
> 
> Feel free to ask if you have any questions to my remarks.

Pretty much like a lot of us here I guess, I'm half comfortable
with legal components, so wouldn't be against seeing this part
being double-checked actually.  I spent some time into
Dpkg::Copyright::Scanner(3pm) to get the copyright in a
seemingly adequate shape, and tried a few rounds of `cme
update dpkg-copyright` to see how it behaves (as provided in
Sid, if that is worth mentioning) but comments lasted until I
remove them manually.

You don't mind if I tried to keep the legal babbling as short as
seems reasonably possible ?  (well, at least with regards to
what the cme model accepts...)  I have to write down official
authorizations by hand to fullfill my groceries duty, since I
have no printer; so, I'm building up some kind of trauma...

> Thanks again

You're welcome,
Kind Regards,
-- 
Étienne Mollier <etienne.mollier@mailoo.org>
Fingerprint:  5ab1 4edf 63bb ccff 8b54  2fa9 59da 56fe fff3 882d
Help find cures against the Covid-19 !  Give CPU cycles:
  * Rosetta@home: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/
  * Folding@home: https://foldingathome.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: