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

Re: RFS: tomb

Jaromil wrote:
> i've packed a new upstream version of tomb and packaged it with some
> mentored corrections. it is now lintian clean and can be attained
> from http://apt.dyne.org/debian
>   deb http://apt.dyne.org/debian stable main
> here below i'll reply to a few standing issues:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011, Benoît Knecht wrote:
> > Check your build dependencies, and also note that you shouldn't
> > explicitly depend on libraries: linking is automatically detected
> > and the necessary libraries are added to ${shlibs:Depends}.
> thanks, this was explained to me also by another mentor (antonio@dyne)

I still cannot build it in a clean chroot, with the same error as
before. Did you try building it with pbuilder?

> > Another suggestion: since DEP-5 [2] is probably going to become
> > policy, it's recommended to use this format for the debian/copyright
> > file in new packages.
> > [2] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/
> i've read DEP-5 with interest. i find it a very good improvement to
> the present system! looking forward to use it in future. i guess is
> working with quilt 3.0 and git-buildpackage? that's what i'm happily
> using..

Yes, sure, it doesn't depend on the build system or package format. The
copyright file is just copied in the package.

> > Also, your debian/patches/debian-changes-0.9.1-1 patch is creating
> > several files, and making a bunch of other changes; since you're
> > upstream, it doesn't seem like it's intended.
> i believe you are talking about the diff that git-buildpackage
> generates against my "debian-orig0" branch? that is done automatically
> and i'm comfortably storing some modifications to the master branch
> which i do only for debian (like installation of menu files from
> configure rather than from "dirty" shellscripts)

Yes, I'm talking about that file. I know that git-buildpackage generates
it automatically, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try and improve

First of all, creating an entire file in a patch (like you're doing with
doc/tomb-open.1 and other man pages) is not such a good idea. Better put
the file in debian/ and install it from there (or better yet, include
them upstream since _you_ are upstream).

Then you're making some changes to some Makefile.am files; you should
document those in the patch header and the changelog.

> > Finally, "licensecheck -r tomb-0.9.1" reports some missing or
> > incomplete copyright headers; as upstream you can easily fix those.
> i've tried licensecheck myself, but it keeps reporting missing license
> in .c files where the license is actually included in the header
> comment.
> i suspect the error consists in the fact licensecheck doesn't
> tolerates change in spaces and justification of default license texts,
> since i'm frequently using the emacs justification on text in files.
> i guess licensecheck should be enhanced to be more fexible..  besides
> that, all files in distributed tomb upstream and debian package have a
> license notice.

You're right about src/tomb-status.c, I've no idea why it doesn't detect
the license header. In src/tomb-askpass.c however, there's no copyright,
just the license (who's the author?), and the FSF address is wrong.


Benoît Knecht

Reply to: