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

Re: RFS: marave

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 23:18:15 -0500
Romain Beauxis <toots@rastageeks.org> wrote:

> Le jeudi 19 août 2010 22:39:40, Chris a écrit :
> > >  * If you are repacking the sources, the convention is usually to
> > >
> > > rename it with dfsg in its version and to document the changes in
> > > a debian/README.Debian file (in this case, you may also want to
> > > mangle debian/watch to make it work with your dfsg version..)
> > 
> > Done, Done and Done
> Woops, I should have been more careful..
> The changes in the sources should be documented in
> README.Debian-source, not README.Debian, my bad, sorry.
> Additionaly, the purpose of this file is that if someone takes over
> the maintenance of the package later, to be able to build a new
> tarball from the original sources of, say, a new release.
> So, I believe you should add more than the current:
> "This (dfsg) clean version of this package was produce by replacing
> all the wav and jpeg files included in the original upstream source."
> If I would be taking the package, I would like to know what are
> exactly the file that have been changed, what was the license that
> was not DFSG and where did you get the new files.
> That way, if a new upstream release happen, I can check if the
> licence has changed, and if not get the files you have used..

Ok - Hope what I have there now works.

> Also, lintian gives me the following warning:
> W: marave: extra-license-file 
> usr/share/pyshared/marave/editor/highlight/LICENSE
> N: 
> N:    All license information should be collected in the
> debian/copyright N:    file. This usually makes it unnecessary for
> the package to install this N:    information in other places as well.
> N:    
> N:    Refer to Debian Policy Manual section 12.5 (Copyright
> information) for N:    details.
> N:    
> N:    Severity: normal, Certainty: possible
> dpkg -L marave also gives me this file which I think should be
> removed: /usr/share/pyshared/marave/editor/highlight/AUTHORS

Heh - I forgot about this from the 1st attempt to make the package.
Should be god to go now.

> During the build, i see:
> dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Depends field of package marave: unknown
> substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
> -> Your package does not ship any binary arch-specific files (hence
> it is a Arch:all package), you do not need shlibs:Depends

Gotcha - removed.
> dpkg-gencontrol: warning: Provides field of package marave: unknown 
> substitution variable ${python:Provides}

No longer there.

> dpkg-gencontrol: warning: package marave: unused substitution
> variable ${python:Versions}

Ok, this one has me perplexed. I could use a little nudge on this one.
I have read the Debian Python Policy unfortunately - this one is getting
by me.

> -> You should check these fields with the Python Policy.
> Appart from this, the package builds and runs ok.
> I would recommend to fix the mentioned issues and also to check
> against the latest python policy for the two python-specific fields.
> More generaly, the ususal advice for python-related sponsorship is to
> ask the python maintainers. However, this is not necessary for this
> time but next time, you might ask them.

Noted, for next time of course. Thanks!
> You might as well put the package under team maintenance with the
> future uploads, this makes it much more easy for both you and them :-)

I like this idea also. I am part of that team (albeit a super-newb).
I have a contact within the Team I can ask for some help how to do this
after the fact.
> Romain

You have been a great help, Romain. Please look at the latest upload.
The respective dsc file can be found at:

Best regards,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: