søn, 12 06 2005 kl. 15:08 +0200, skrev Sven Mueller:
> >>- The license is GPL, the copyright is "Copyright 2005 Novell, Inc.",
> >> you said the opposite.
> > Not understood. Miguel wrote it, passed the copyright to Novell and the
> > license is GPL. What am I doing wrong then?
> The way you filled out the debian/copyright file, it looks as if the GPL
> wrote the software while the license is "Copyright 2005 Novell, Inc.".
> In other words, you exchanged the values for "license" and "copyright".
Oh, right, so I did. Fixed.
> >>debian/rules:
> >>- You added a line with docbook-to-man to the build-stamp target, but
> >> commented it out. Why?
> You didn't answer my question here. Is there a reason why you added
> docbook-to-man but commented it out?
That one was also from dh_make.
> >>E: em-panel-applet; Binary /usr/bin/em-panel-applet contains unneeded
> >>section .comment.
> >> This binary or shared library is not completely stripped. It contains
> >> the unneeded section .note, or .comment.
> > Hmm... I may have compiled it with nostrip and debug options.
> > Whoops. :-)
> That's one of the reason why it is always a good idea to run linda and
> lintian on your final package.
True.
> >>E: em-panel-applet; Binary /usr/bin/em-panel-applet is not stripped.
> >> The binary shown is not stripped, and is included in a standard
> >> package, while Policy shows that it should be stripped.
> >>***** Forgot to strip the binary ("strip em-panel-applet")
> > dh_strip does that, right?
> It should, IIRC.
It did, but obviously it keeps its hands to itself, when nostrip is set.
> >>lintian also finds these additional ones.
> > Weirdness. When I ran lintian, it was totally quiet..
> What file did you run it on? You get the most complete output if you run
> it on the .changes file (which causes lintian to check both source and
> binary package, if both are included in there).
Thanks for the tip! I think I ran it on the .dsc file.
--
Søren Hansen <sh@warma.dk>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature