Re: RFS: dsbltesters
On Thursday 26 January 2006 21:18, Al Nikolov wrote:
> Christoph Haas wrote:
> > - Please close the WNPP bug 273204 which you opened yourself
> > one and a half year ago.
>
> Ok, i'll close it.
>
> I assumed though that ITP should be closed after that the package was
> become ready and was appeared in the pool. I'm i wrong?
Please use the debian/changelog to close it.
http://www.de.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-upload-bugfix
> > - The copyright file should contain the years of copyright.
>
> Ok, i'll fix that.
>
> BTW i see many copyright files in Debian packages whitout (c)year lines.
> Is it actually a violation?
http://groups.google.de/group/linux.debian.announce.devel/browse_frm/thread/ee00935883c7bec2/5326ec35388edb3c
> > - There has been long time no change. Did you contact the upstream
> > to make sure the software is still maintained?
>
> This piece of software is developed and distributed by dsbl.org project
> which acts as great free network service. I have no doubt, the software
> is pretty _useful_ as one of methods to open proxy/relay reliable
> testing and it's included in FreeBSD ports collection. Should i care if
> it wasn't updated for 2 years?
The main concern is that security bugs may come up. And in that case the
upstream should jump in quickly and help to fix it. If the upstream
software became unmaintained then the situation may lead to the removal of
the package.
It's okay if the last update is a year ago. I just wanted to make sure you
talked to the upstream at least once.
> > - Installing the README file doesn't seem to add any value for the
> > end-user.
>
> Ok, i'll remove it.
>
> I assumed that README.Debian is the right place to point on specific
> build options. Debian includes needed development libraries, but the
> easiest way to debianize this software was just to link it against the
> supplied versions. Should i emphasize that somewhere?
The README.Debian provides additional information for end users on how to
use the software. Say the package installs some binaries then the user
should start by reading the README.Debian to understand how to use the
package.
That README.Debian should not be used to tell how your package works
internally or which options you used to build it. That's not relevant for
the end user.
> > - The upstream tarball I just fetched from the web site has another
> > md5 checksum than the orig.tar.gz you provide. How come?
> > At a first "diff -r" glance the two files have many differences.
>
> $ md5sum dsbltesters_0.9.5.orig.tar.gz dsbl-testers-0.9.5.tar.gz
> 55285009d90914048df2f62f4c9525d8 dsbltesters_0.9.5.orig.tar.gz
> 55285009d90914048df2f62f4c9525d8 dsbl-testers-0.9.5.tar.gz
>
> For me, they are identical. Perhaps, you've downloaded by mistake
> dsbl-0.9.5.tar.gz which is server software.
You are right. My mistake. Awkward... :)
> > - The package is not lintian clean. Three issues there.
>
> Do you mean issues above or something other? I saw only one:
>
> $ lintian dsbltesters_0.9.5-1.dsc
> W: dsbltesters source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.1
I got these messages:
W: dsbltesters source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.1
E: dsbltesters: file-in-etc-not-marked-as-conffile /etc/dsbl.conf
W: dsbltesters: old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file
> Could you be so kind to check dsbltesters_0.9.5-2?
Just did. Still not lintian clean. Did you use a current "Sid" (unstable)
installation to build the package? These are the remaning messages:
E: dsbltesters: file-in-etc-not-marked-as-conffile /etc/dsbl.conf
W: dsbltesters: old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file
Please make sure your package are lintian-clean.
Christoph
--
Never trust a system administrator who wears a tie and suit.
Reply to: