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

Re: RFS: hex-a-hop (updated package)

Hi Bas,

On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:55:31AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> I have some questions before uploading the package:

first of all thanks for your review.

> - You have specified "Priority: extra".  According to policy, "This
>   contains all packages that conflict with others with required,
>   important, standard or optional priorities, or are only likely to be
>   useful if you already know what they are or have specialized
>   requirements."  I would expect this to be optional.  Is there a reason
>   that it isn't?

Oops, I didn't changed this. Sam, you are probably the one who is
responsible. Can you explain this? (Would it be OK for me to change
this (after a carefully analysis this night) or do you feel responsible
for this alone?)

To be honest I mainly worked on i18n and some code cleanup/bug fixes.

> - debian/copyright is almost complete.  It says: "On Debian systems, the
>   complete text of the GNU General Public License can be found in
>   `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'.", which isn't very clear about the
>   version.  I suggest you use something like what was suggested on the
>   games list by Eddy. 

>   It also says "The Debian packaging is (C) 2007,
>   Miriam Ruiz <little_miry@yahoo.es> and is licensed under the GPL, see
>   above.".  You may want to add your name to that (AFAIK you did

Right, will do so. Did so already for individual patches.

>   significant parts as well).  And this is a "GPL without version"

Which is not forbidden as was told to me once I asked ...

>   claim, which according to the GPL means any version is acceptable.  I
>   think this is not what is intended.  Also, it is said that "(C)" has

I don't know what was intended. Miriam, can you please change this? (I
will agree to any license change as long as only a version number is added
such as "v2 or later", ...)
I changed the existing package and had to use the given license for

>   no legal meaning, you should use the word "copyright" instead.  I
>   don't think any judge would consider this unclear, but better safe
>   than sorry. :-)

Will do so in the program as well to clarify it.

> - The manual page mentions the license.  This is not required, but if
>   you do it, it would be good to point to /usr/share/common-licenses for
>   the complete text.


> - Lintian gives a list of warnings for the translated manpages.  They're
>   not compressed with gzip -9, and some of them have errors.  These

Hm, yes, that's my error. dh_installman will not do the job for
currently unsupported languages so I do no longer use it.

All man pages lintian complain about are OK, just currently not supported by
man-db and I adapted the installation so that they will supported later
by default once man-db is upgraded. Will try to create a override file.

>   should be fixed.  For the compression, you should add "-9" to the gzip
>   command in debian/i18n/Makefile.  I didn't look at the other problems,
>   but lintian -i gives some hints.
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 01:15:04AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> > The package appears to be lintian clean.
> You may be using lintian from stable?  The one from sid gives the
> errors, anyway.

Right, I really have to use the one from Sid!

To be honest I fixed all issues I was aware of and thought also that
mentors.debian.net (which created this mail template) does another
lintian check. This is nevertheless no excuse ...
Thanks Bas, I will adress all these issues,

Reply to: