odd things in my package

[Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au>]

Thanks to all the people who've provided feedback about my packaging
efforts, particularly on reSIProcate

  http://mentors.debian.net/package/resiprocate

I've tried to do all the right things by the policies, etc, but given
the nature of the package, it is like trying to fit a square peg into a
round hole:

debian/copyright:
- I've now re-done this as DEP-5: but given the project has so many
modules each with different contributors and license terms, have I
covered this adequately?
- I've tried to cover the most restrictive license terms (the Vovida
license and OpenSSL) at the top of debian/copyright, although there are
contributions under less restrictive terms elsewhere in the project.  Is
this sufficient effort?

package naming:
- the reTurn component would imply a package called `return', which is
very generic, so I've now renamed it.
- package named `libresiprocate-1.8' is not a single lib, it is a group
of libs - this approach is OK?

lintian-overrides:
- there were many issues with false-positives from hardening and also
from shlib dev links, have I used the lintian-overrides appropriately in
this case?

cdbs to debhelper:
- I've converted to debhelper (>= 9) and multiarch
- I just adapted debian/rules, debian/control and debian/compat
- this is my first multiarch package
- does it appear to be done correctly?