On 29/08/16 21:49, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Hi, > > I'm adopting muse-el. Right now it's a work-in-progress. The steps I > took to fixup this package can be found here: > > https://github.com/sten0/muse-el > clone: https://github.com/sten0/muse-el.git > > I've also uploaded a package, with "-sa" full sources for review here: > https://mentors.debian.net/package/muse-el > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/muse-el/muse-el_3.20+dfsg-1.dsc > > I'm not sure what to make of lintian Error > "license-problem-gfdl-invariants" against the README. The README > says: > The Muse manual is available under the terms of the GNU Free > Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by > the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, and with the > Front-Cover texts and Back-Cover Texts as specified in the manual. > > Does the README itself also fall under the GFDL or GPL-3? If not, > I'll have to add another exclusion to debian/copyright. Additionally, > should I break out the documentation into a non-free muse-el-doc > package? This seems to be bug #695783 which was fixed in 3.20+dfsg-0.1 by removing the manual. If you haven't repacked the source, the manual should still be removed so there shouldn't be a problem here. The copyright statement specifically refers to the Muse manual so the README file should be fine. Assuming there aren't any more cases of this in the package, you can probably override the lintian error (with a suitable comment). > Finally, is now the time to fix the > debian-rules-missing-recommended-target warning? I'm saving homepage > and Vcs fields for last. Yes, those targets are required by policy (even though there are masses of packages which don't implement them). Since you're adopting the package, I would rewrite the whole of d/rules using dh. James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature