Re: Bug #550216: RFS: audiotools/2.21 [ITP]
Hello, I have updated my packaging
http://mentors.debian.net/package/audiotools Version 2.21-2 .
I added a DEP-5 debian/copyright but I would like help to streamline
and check that I am doing it correctly. Note that I am talking to
upstream and they are aware of missing per-file copyright that need
fixed. Most (but not all) per-file copyright corrections have landed
in upstream.
PAPT sounds good. Will follow up when package is ready.
Please review, thanks!
Eric
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Eric Shattow <lucent@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear mentors,
>>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "audiotools"
>>
>> Python Audio Tools http://audiotools.sourceforge.net/ collection of audio
>> handling programs which work from the command line.
>>
>> To access further information about this package, please visit the following
>> URL:
>>
>> http://mentors.debian.net/package/audiotools
>>
>> Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
>> dget -x
>> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/audiotools/audiotools_2.21-1.dsc
>
> Blockers for upload:
> - debian/copyright: you've only mentioned GPL-2+ in your d/copyright
> file, but various other files in the source package have different
> licenses, e.g. src/replaygain.{c,h} is LGPL-2.1, src/parson.{c,h} is
> MIT/Expat, src/common/md5.{c,h} is public domain, and perhaps others
> that I've missed (a good tool for checking this is "licensecheck" from
> devscripts, although a certain amount of manual checking is still
> required). You _must_ mention the copyright owners and corresponding
> licenses on a per-file basis (ftpmasters regularly reject packages
> that fail to do so), and it's good practice anyhow [1]. I suggest
> DEP-5 (or copyright format 1.0 as it's now known) [2] to keep
> debian/copyright legible and easy to parse, but free-form d/copyright
> (what you currently have) is acceptable assuming that you do in fact
> mention all copyright owners and licenses on a per-file basis.
>
> Non-blockers (nitpicks):
> - consider maintaining this package in a team, e.g. the Python
> Applications Packaging Team (PAPT) [3]? It's easier to find sponsors
> within a team (I regularly sponsor packages in various teams,
> including the PAPT), and it lets fellow team members help you fix bugs
> if you're away or non-responsive for a while
> - please add DEP-3 [4] formatted patch headers to your patches
> - please consider using "wrap-and-sort -s" (from devscripts) to clean
> up d/control (e.g. it makes it easier to tell in a debdiff what
> changed in your build-deps if you modify them).
> - use dh_installman(1) instead of your current
> override_dh_auto_install target to install manpages, e.g. all you need
> is a debian/manpages file that contains:
> docs/*.1
> docs/*.5
> - lintian: "I: audiotools: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign" in many of the
> manpages, you may want to fix this and forward a patch upstream
>
> For future RFS requests, please file a bug report against the
> sponsorship-requests pseudopackage [5], it makes RFSs much easier to
> track.
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
>
> [1] http://lu.is/blog/2012/03/17/on-the-importance-of-per-file-license-information/
> [2] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
> [3] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonAppsPackagingTeam
> [4] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/
> [5] https://bugs.debian.org/sponsorship-requests
Reply to: