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

Re: Re: RFS: bluemindo

> Due to the fact that its a GPL license you have the possibility to
> create a symlink to the file in /u/s/common-licenes.
> Or patch bluemindo. First choice probably preferrable.

Done, but not sure this is the cleanest way.

> Hm. Why don't you use the way thats written down in the CDBS docs [1]?
> Is there a special reason for your manual calling of dh_pysupport?
> I also don't think that this is enough.

Bluemindo does not provide a setup.py file, so I've done what the New
Policy says [2].

> I see that you adopted the machine-parseable copyright format. So do you
> like it?

Yes, I like it.

> However it seems still a bit bogus to me:
> Most files use the GPL-3 as license so citing parts of the license
> explicit is not needed and imho makes no sense, too. Additional you have
> a "License.." block at the end of the file, which is possibly un-needed
> (because the machine-parseable part replaces it) but in my opinion a
> good approach, because I really prefer to still have a human-readable
> part as long as there is no parser that makes the file more
> human-readable by people who are not so technical experienced.
> So to make your copyright perfect:
> - Remove license excerpts for well known licenses
> - Include complete license information for the PSF, because it is not in
>   /u/s/common-licenses
> - Make the human readable part complete (e.g. re-add a Copyright part).

Hm... The resulting file will be pretty large if I do so.
The human readable part... Hm... I switched to the machine-parseable one
because there weren't any 'official' way to do when there are multiple
I however made some modifications to debian/copyright.

> > As the package provides a png file in the good place, can I use it? or
> > do I have to make a xmp file?
> Well, the most window managers probably don't understand the PNG format,
> so yes this is required. However you can do this automatically by
> converting the file with convert and build-depending on imagemagick.

Done, but like the COPYING symlink, I don't know if I have done it in a
clean way.

> Did you read the links I've posted? Its described in detail, there.
> But to make it clear:
> This file is for other people then you, so that they have a chance to
> lookup how certain processes work with your package. E.g. for the
> security team to read up, what they need to do, to get a fully patched
> source, create new pages, remove patches. That is that people who
> usually don't maintain your package and probably usually use other
> methods (e.g. quilt and debhelper instead of CDBS and patchsys) have a
> chance to update your package (for example due to a security issue).
> Whats missing from your file is a documented way to create a new patch.

Should be enough, now, provided that cdbs-edit-patch is available.

> > Compat is now 5.
> Yeah right, but you missed the depend in debian/control.

It should be ok now.

> It would be better to make two makefiles of the first one. So that
> every patch is for exactly one change. BTW. please do not forget to
> forward the patches upstream. The proposed seperating into two pages
> also makes it easier for you if upstream integrates only one part of the
> patch.

The first patch is now splitted into two patches: one for $DESTDIR and
one for permissions.
However, I'm working with the upstream developer, and we'll apply the
patches as soon we are sure all is fine with the package.

> > I think Recommends are adequate. This packages aren't required to run
> > bluemindo, but they are required to use several features. 
> That sounds reasonable. But there is still a question that you should
> clear: Are those features really common to the usual user of the
> software? Is it someone one usually would expect? If yes, then
> Recommends is fine, otherwise you should move such things to Suggests.

I've moved one of them to Suggests.

> > > - Description needs some overhaul. See [6] and [7]. Please also
> > >       check it for spelling or grammar errors.
> > It should be a bit better, now.
> Not enough :-):
> - The "A" in the short description is useles
> - The enumeration in the description is confusing.
> Best Regards,
> Patrick
> [1] https://perso.duckcorp.org/duck/cdbs-doc/cdbs-doc.xhtml#id2528674

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: