Bug#678836: Package qpdfview
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:18:34AM +0200, Benjamin Eltzner wrote:
> If I am not mistaken you commented on the package
> qpdfview I uploaded to mentors.
>
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/qpdfview
>
> If I understand you correctly, you criticize the fact that the source
> of the package is not identical to the source in the upstream
> repository.
I wrote this:
| These files should be identical:
|
| 29b2f3e9f1ff18f83529c2fc1c46067a qpdfview-0.3.tar.gz
| f9a08c00980b5d3fc93d874907963c3d qpdfview_0.3.orig.tar.gz
I wrote that because of this:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz
"You should upload packages with a pristine source tarball if possible".
> This is due to the fact that
If there are good reasons to repackage the to repackage the upstream source,
then "detailed information on how the repackaged source was obtained, and on
how this can be reproduced should be provided in debian/copyright".
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-origtargz
> Would it suffice, if I forwarded to you the email
> from upstream containing the source of the package I submitted along
> with a signature or is it necessary that the source submitted to
> debian is published by upstream in their repository?
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile
"the copyright file must say where the upstream sources (if any) were obtained".
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Homepage
"Homepage - (...) the site from which the original source can be obtained"
>
> I would be glad if you could give me a hint.
I hope that this was helpful.
Regards,
Bart Martens
Reply to: