Bug#752339: Some questions about RFS: dbuskit/0.1.1-1 [ITP]
- To: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>, 752339@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#752339: Some questions about RFS: dbuskit/0.1.1-1 [ITP]
- From: Yavor Doganov <yavor@gnu.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:54:36 +0300
- Message-id: <87oawqhjeb.GNU's_not_UNIX!%yavor@gnu.org>
- Reply-to: Yavor Doganov <yavor@gnu.org>, 752339@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <53C5184E.6020806__6540.69834058664$1405425995$gmane$org@wollumbin.marsaxlokk.dhcp.io>
- References: <53C5184E.6020806__6540.69834058664$1405425995$gmane$org@wollumbin.marsaxlokk.dhcp.io>
Paul Gevers wrote:
> Before I upload this package to the new queue, could you please
> comment on the lintian errors about missing source?
The reason for these is gnustep-make's incapable dist rule, combined
with not so careful upstream.
> I am looking for a statement like: "I added lintian overrides...
Hmm, but I have not overridden them, I don't feel I should. I have
informed upstream and I hope it won't happen in subsequent releases.
I'm not cleaning them explicitly either as gnustep-make's distclean
rule does that. There's little I can do given that the object files
are in the .orig tarball; adding a lintian override won't change that.
> (I haven't checked the content, but these files should be used to
> test the build, no?)
Yes and no. They depend on a test framework that is not packaged for
Debian, so they're unused for the debian package build.
As for the license, debian/copyright is correct. It is true there are
discrepancies, I'll ask upstream to rectify this.
Reply to: