Re: RFS: triggerhappy
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 06:00:53PM +0100, Stefan Tomanek wrote:
> Dies schrieb Nick Leverton (nick@leverton.org):
>
> > I gather that this is a new package to Debian. Your debian/changelog
> > should probably start from new in that case.
>
> I'm not sure about that and I heard different opinions about it - does
> it hurt to keep the old history? OK, it'll survive inside the git repository,
> but is removing the history before the package introduction really necessary?
You're right that opinions vary and some uploaders may not mind.
> > The new debian/changelog should start with the new version, 0.3.1-1,
> > and should Close: your ITP bug #603842 (you've closed it in a version
> > which AFAICS has never been in Debian).
>
> Sure, adding that line would be the first thing I'd do once someone volunteers
> to sponsor the package.
Ok - my preference as a maintainer is to make the package as ready as
possible, as sponsors are often busy. That said they will often make
valuable corr^Wcontributions anyway !
> > The source files licensing (author, date and a pointer to COPYING) needs
> > to be made explicit in each file, via a comment block near the top:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/03/msg00451.html
> > Are you your own upstream ? This could be easy to apply then :)
>
> Every .c-file has to contain that header? Sure, possible, but seems very
> awkward?
It helps, the Debian tool licensecheck can then scan and report on the
contents of the package. Also if a source is borrowed elsewhere, the
authorship is still clear.
> > Sorry this took so long to write up, hope you can have a happy
> > $FESTIVITIES and write some more cool code for Debian :-)
>
> Well, thanks for your review, I'll try to do both :-)
Thanks for your contribution to Debian !
Nick
Reply to: