[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#812766: RFS: mdk-doc-non-dfsg/1.2.9-1 - initial packaging



On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 11:53:13AM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> control: block 544012 by -1
> control: owner -1 !
> control: tag -1 moreinfo
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:18:58PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:55:45PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "mdk-doc-non-dfsg"; it is
> > > the non-DFSG documentation (GNU Free Documentation License with invariant
> > > front and back covers) for mdk, the MIX Development Kit.
> > > 
> > >  * Package name    : mdk-doc-non-dfsg
> 
> Is there a good reason to have such a name for the source package?
> What was wrong with just "mdk-doc" ?

Well, I was going with the make-doc-non-dfsg example, but after taking
a look at the non-free Sources file, it seems that just -doc is much
more common.  I've renamed the source package, take a look at:

  http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/m/mdk-doc/mdk-doc_1.2.9-1.dsc

> > > Note that I'm aware that Lintian produces a single pedantic message about
> > > the watch file checking the upstream PGP signature; well, the watch file
> > > actually does that, but it uses a line continuation syntax that Lintian
> > > does not yet understand; I intend to file a bug about that, hopefully along
> > > with a patch, soon.
> 
> well, to fix that tag is enough to remove the whitespaces.

Oof, yes, you're right.  OK, I've removed the whitespace and the warning is
indeed gone now.

> Anyway, yes please file that bug.

Yes, I will.

> > >   dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/m/mdk-doc-non-dfsg/mdk-doc-non-dfsg_1.2.9-1.dsc
> > 
> > OK, I've uploaded a new version of mdk-doc-non-dfsg to mentors.d.n at
> > the same location with a single major change: declare compliancy with
> > Debian Policy 3.9.7 and, thus, install the documentation into
> > /usr/share/doc/mdk/ instead of /usr/share/doc/mdk-doc/ as suggested by
> > the brand new policy's section 12.3.
> 
> cool.
> 
> 
> I find the package ok, apart from its name.  I find no sense whatsoever
> to have '-non-dfsg' in the source package name, the section is enough.

Thanks for the suggestions!

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev  roam@ringlet.net roam@FreeBSD.org pp@storpool.com
PGP key:        http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115  C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: