Bug#752116: RFS: drmips/1.2.2-1 [ITP]
Hi Bruno,
2014-09-21 7:35 GMT-03:00 Bruno Nova <brunomb.nova@gmail.com>:
>> Hmm, this is an interesting point. The "education" section was added by
>> the FTP Masters back in 2012, and grep-dctrl -FSection education seems
>> to show me at least 128 binary packages matching that (e.g. gcompris,
>> kanadic, scratch, etc). See the list of sections in Debian Policy 2.4;
>> it seems that the webpage needs to be updated.
>
> I also thought 'education' was a valid section: lintian doesn't complain,
> Synaptic shows a "friendly" name translated to my language for that section,
> vim doesn't mark it in red, and Ubuntu has some packages in that section.
> And the Debian Policy mentions that section indeed.
> Should I leave it in 'education', or should I change it? Maybe to 'java', or
> 'electronics' which is also a good choice. It's probably better to change.
Ok. I will let you decide. However, see the cons:
- Your package won't be showed in unstable list[1].
- If your package is rejected, maybe we won't have time to reupload
before the Jessie freezy.
[1] https://packages.debian.org/unstable
I think that more important that the section is the word 'education'
in long description.
>> 3. d/copyright:
>> - You must list all authors and licenses in thos file. Use the
>> command 'egrep -sriA25 '(public domain|copyright)' *' to help you.
>
> I was missing the copyrights for the files in cmake/Modules/, and I think
> that's all.
I don't remember but I will recheck when you upload to mentors.
> By "authors" you mean the names/emails of the people/companies that appear
> in the copyright notices of the source files, right?
Yes.
> The copyright of cmake/Modules/UseLATEX.cmake caused me some confusion,
> though. But I found a package in Ubuntu (feel++) that uses that file, so it
> should be ok.
My suggestion:
Files: cmake/Modules/UseLATEX.cmake
Copyright: 2004 Sandia Corporation,
by Kenneth Moreland <kmorel@sandia.gov>
Comment: version 1.10.4
License: Contract_DE-AC04-94AL85000
License: Contract_DE-AC04-94AL85000
Under the terms of Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000, there is a non-exclusive
license for use of this work by or on behalf of the U.S. Government.
.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that this Notice and any statement
of authorship are reproduced on all copies.
>> - From Debian policy[2]:
>>
>> "Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the
>> Artistic license, the GNU GPL (versions 1, 2, or 3), the GNU LGPL
>> (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) should
>> refer to the corresponding files under
>> /usr/share/common-licenses,[
>> 119] rather than quoting them in the
>> copyright file."
>>
>> - I suggest you to use the conventional license texts provided by
>> Debian, when applicable. These text are available at
>> /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/licenses/.
>
> But the template texts there for those licenses also include a "short
> summary" of the licenses, before the pointer to the full text.
> Should I remove that and put only the pointer?
No. The point is use the conventional texts. As an example, see the
differences between /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/licenses/gpl2 and
your text.
>> 5.d/links: I didn't understand your intend with this file.
>
> The package installs some PDF manuals to /usr/share/drmips/doc/, and the
> program searches for them in that place (using a relative path).
> The link is just so the manuals are also accessible from /usr/share/doc/,
> the usual place in Linux for documentation.
> Should I remove the link?
It is a bit strange. I suggest change the source code as upstream or
make a patch for CMakeLists.txt to search in standard place.
> Some additional questions:
> * Should the Priority in debian/control be 'optional' or 'extra'?
Optional. From Debian Policy: "extra: This contains all packages that
conflict with others with required, important, standard or optional
priorities, or are only likely to be useful if you already know what
they are or have specialized requirements (such as packages containing
only detached debugging symbols)".
> * Should the urgency in debian/changelog be 'low' or 'medium'? (the default
> was changed recently, I think)
For the first upload (new package) use low.
Cheers,
Eriberto
Reply to: