Re: RFS: hex-a-hop (updated package)
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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,