Re: prinseq(-lite), a dependency of virus seeker
Hi Étienne,
thanks a lot for your work on this package. As usual I'm CCing my
answer to the list to make sure others can learn from our discussion as
well.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Étienne Mollier wrote:
>
> and thanks for time you take reviewing this too.
I'd love to repeat: I always consider it a win to teach newcomers.
So you are perfectly welcome.
> > 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. ;)
:-)
> > 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...
Very good you spotted this issue via lintian! Lintian is really helpful
not only for beginners.
> > 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.
Good!
> > 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...
I've commited something what I consider the prefered form by our
ftpmasters. There is this short snippet of the GPL text and the hint
where to find it on a Debian system. The DEP5 copyright format also
wants you to use a single License paragraph when having more than
one Files paragraphs with the same license. I've just fixed this.
I have a question to the files debian/copyright-scan-patterns.yml and
debian/fill.copyright.blanks.yml. I admit I have never seen these files
and I'm wondering for what purpose you injected these. IMHO these can
be removed but may be I can learn something from you (which is not
untypical that I learn from newcomers!)
I have further remark to debian/rules and the usage of the debhelper
tools. Please inspect my single commits closely. You have re-invented
code that is usually done by dh_install, dh_installexamples and dh_link.
I tried to use single commits to demonstrate the changes. Please make
sure you understand every single commit and feel free to ask gere if
something might remain unclear.
I'd consider the package ready for upload once you clarified whether
the debian/*.yml files are needed or not.
Thanks a lot for your contribution
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: