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 17:05:39 +0300
- Message-id: <87mwcahg3w.GNU's_not_UNIX!%yavor@gnu.org>
- Reply-to: Yavor Doganov <yavor@gnu.org>, 752339@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <53C527CC.3010600__28431.3997639858$1405429960$gmane$org@wollumbin.marsaxlokk.dhcp.io>
- References: <53C5184E.6020806__6540.69834058664$1405425995$gmane$org@wollumbin.marsaxlokk.dhcp.io> <87oawqhjeb.GNU's_not_UNIX!%yavor@gnu.org> <53C527CC.3010600__28431.3997639858$1405429960$gmane$org@wollumbin.marsaxlokk.dhcp.io>
Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 15-07-14 14:54, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, to document this fact is exactly why an override would be nice.
OK, I added the override.
> But I understand you position, I guess you just want to prevent it
> happens again next time, right?
Exactly.
> I haven't checked, but ftp-masters use also several lintian checks
> as auto-reject. So maybe this is even needed to pass the NEW queue.
I thought about that; this lintian error is not in the automatic
rejects list.
> > I'm not cleaning them explicitly either as gnustep-make's distclean
> > rule does that.
>
> Well, the source has to be DFSG-free. How we guarantee that usually is
> by building everything from source during the build. If you don't want
> to build it, you have to remove them from source and repack
I don't understand. It is quite common for a package not to build
some part of the source; this is not a problem at all as long as
everything is DFSG-compliant. Which is the case here.
> > As for the license, debian/copyright is correct. It is true there are
> > discrepancies, I'll ask upstream to rectify this.
>
> Please add a comment field to the copyright file. Otherwise the
> ftp-master is going to ask the same questions again (or going to reject
> the package).
Right; added (in dbuskit.git).
> Also noting somewhere that this package is a requisite for
> agenda.app is good, e.g. in the ITP.
And also by cdplayer.app (not packaged yet). But isn't this
self-explanatory? I think libraries w/o reverse dependencies are
strongly discouraged.
Reply to: