On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:15:22PM +0100, James Westby wrote:
> > > * NEWS
> > > - this seems to be the upstream changelog, and it has to be treated
> > > so: called changelog, and installed (after gzip -9 ) into
> > > /usr/share/doc/drapes/changelog.gz . Give a look at
> > > dh_installchangelogs
> >
> > I think it's already done, because in /usr/share/doc/drapes/ there is
> > the file NEWS.gz which is the gziped copy of the NEWS file of the tarball
>
> Sandro was suggesting you install it as changelog.gz rather than
> NEWS.gz, but I'm not sure that is necessary.
ok, I understand, but in the upstream tarball there are two files
similar to a changelog file (changelog and NEWS), so I preferred to
consider the file named changelog as the official changelog.
sorry for the play on words. :)
> > > * config.{guess,sub}
> > > - take care of those files: they can create many problems. you can
> > > look at /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz
> >
> > I have applied config.dpatch because debian/rules, based on the template
> > of dh_make, makes a copy of these files from /usr/share/misc, alterating
> > the original tarball, with the side effect of including the updated
> > config.guess and config.sub in the diff.gz.
> > In this manner, I hope to have followed correctly the
> > /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz guidelines...
>
> Your solution is interesting, but it is not the normal way of doing it.
> > > * debian/patches
> > > - please include description for patch 01_data_Makefile.in.dpatch
> > > - 02_config.dpatch is provided by Ralf Treinen <treinen@debian.org>:
> > > should he be mentioned in debian/copyright? Some DDs can comment on
> > > this?
> >
> > the first issue is fixed, but I don't know what to do with the second one...
>
> If copyright has been asserted on the file then it must be mentioned in
> debian/rules, along with its distribution license. If there isn't one
> you should find out what it is and add it, or drop the file.
It's not my solution, :)
I have found it taking a look in the dpatch examples
(/usr/share/doc/dpatch/examples/dpatch/01_config.dpatch.gz).
considering that it is among the examples of dpatch, I have thought that
it is released under GPL, your opinion?
kind regards
francesco
--
Francesco Namuri <francesco@namuri.it>
http://www.namuri.it/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature