Re: RFS: notorious-women
Hi, Benoît,
On Jun 18 2010, benoît tuduri wrote:
> I launched to build my package the debuild command in a command line.
> The only errors which are reported for my last upload are :
> W: notorious-women: new-package-should-close-itp-bug
> W: notorious-women: wrong-bug-number-in-closes l3:#nnnn
> W: notorious-women: extra-license-file usr/share/doc/notorious-women/COPYING
Just for the record, when you upload some packages to the mentors site,
it tells you at least some of the most pressing things that you should
fix, if you visit the package page that is automatically created.
Those messages are generated with explanations and it is enlightening if
you can study their meaning and see how your package could be made more
robust/better.
In fact, it is a very good thing to always think: "can I package this in
a better, easier way, that is more general, that will save me some work
in the future?" Being your first critic is a good step to improve your
skills.
That being said, the automated checking programs can assist you in
learning about aspects where you can improve your package.
> I didn't chose the artistic of dh-make options because it's not the
> precisely the same that i put in copying file, i guess (i'm not a
> legal term expert) :-)
I have not seen the contents of your package, but I suppose that it is
you that prepared the package. If that is correct, do you insist in it
having that exact license?
The "non-commercial" part of the license that you chosen makes it
non-free in Debian. If you remove that part, then it can, from a legal
standpoint, become part of the Debian distribution (just a reminder: the
non-free section of the archive is not considered part of Debian).
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
Reply to: