On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 17:46 +0200, Davy Triponney wrote: > Thank a lot for the report. > > > - polyphone_1.4.orig.tar.gz is now present in SourceForge > (https://sourceforge.net/projects/polyphone/files/polyphone% > 20releases/1.4/) > Regarding get-orig-source, I read this page: > https://wiki.debian.org/onlyjob/get-orig-source > > My watch file is correct since the last version is recognized and > downloaded by uscan. But I don't know how to integrate this nice > feature by modifying the file "rules" even with the explanations. And > I don't know what result I would get. A self-updating package creator? get-orig-source is needed if you don't cant get the orig.tar. One example us, if there isn't one and you pull directly from a repository. A example for this would be my package gmrender-resurrect. Or, if you had to remove files for DFSG freeness (which nowerdays uscan can do for you via ExcludeFiles in d/copyright). So if uscan won't work for you, you need the target... Otherwise not. > - copyright file is fixed, copyright headers added in some source > files, > - debian/share directory has been removed > - the icon resolution is now 512*512, it doesn't come from a vector > file, ok, I just saw that my comment regarding the icon was incomplete... srry about that. The intention is that every file needs its source and regenerated at build time -- the resolution is not a concern, but we need "the preferred form for modiciations" here. So it would be great if you could publish the source for the icon and -- if possible -- regenerate it at build time to the desired sizes... > - debian/polyphone.1 has been completed, > > - ITP bug retitled, > - pdebuilder now can build the package. I'm sorry for > the dependency mistakes. > > > The new package has been uploaded > https://mentors.debian.net/package/polyphone > The above reads very good :) Taking a look now... -> clavier/RT*.cpp seems like an embedded code copy, fortunately its already packaged in Debian is rtmidi, but unfortunatly the package in Debian is much newer than the code in polyphone, so some additional porting beside patching the build system to use the packaged one might be necessary. (Embedded code copies are very discouraged -- refer to the Policy §4.13) (But patching this will help you on another possible issue: The license on RTMidi. It says: Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is *requested* to send the modifications to the original developer Update: I just see that this is a widget, probably from the package vmpk)... It seems is possible to package the QT Widget on its own...) However, for this widget I'd ignore that one for the moment... In the packaged version "request" has been replaced with "ask" and a sentence added that this is not a requirements. I discussed this on d-mentors: there were concerns about DFSG compliance, but the concerns are void when only "ask"ing. (I'm not saying that the "request" isn't ok, but this can cause questions at ftp-masters later on) Another embedded library seems to be the The Synthesis ToolKit in synthetiseur/elements/* (also packaged in Debian) Another one: qcustomplot Another one: sfarklib. (However, this one needs to be packaged) lib/portaudio.h shouldn't be there... :-P For the moment please remove the file with a patch -- to show that it is not used. (If possible, drop that file in your next release) -> d/copyright: It probably misses a Files:* rule with Copyright Davy Triponney and License: GPL-3+ Files: clavier/* Copyright: 2008-2014 Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas, plcl@users.sf.net License: GPL-3+ Your name is missing here as copyright holder Three files without copyright: ./clavier/RtError.h UNKNOWN *No copyright* ./sfark/sfarkglobal.cpp UNKNOWN *No copyright* ./sfark/sfarkglobal.h UNKNOWN *No copyright* ressources/* are missing in d/copyright. Is the manual hand written or generated? (However, as not installed, this is OK) Just a question (to avoid a typo) You license debian/* with GPL-2+ while the rest is GPL-3+ (different version). As you have the "or later" this is ok, but its easier if license of the packaging is exactly same. No need to change, though. Ok so please check the remaining d/copyright issues, and please check if it is feasible to use the packaged libraries instead of your embedded copies. Could you (if feasible to be used) already file an ITP for sfArkLib? Cheer up, we're getting closer :) > Regards, > Davy -- tobi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part