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

Bug#882568: RFS: nq/0.2.1-1 [ITP]



On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 08:14:51AM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> 
> In d/changelog: you forgot to include the ITP bug number.

Thanks for the catch; it seems I had included the ITP number in git
(present on my laptop and alioth) but forgot to rebuild before dput...


> In d/copyright: you need to include the complete CC0 license.

OK; I did so based on what other packages were doing, according to
codesearch.d.n [0].  If that's an acceptable solution, I will
- include the whole CC0 license in debian/copyright
  (this is already uploaded to mentors.d.n);
- open a bug against base-files to ship the CC0 in /usr/share/common-licences
- open bugs against concerned packages, to refer to the licence's text
  as installed by base-files;  (what should the severity be? I guess serious,
  since it is a violation of Debian policy 12.5 [1])

[0]: https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=path%3Adebian%2Fcopyright+CC0
[1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#copyright-information


> You override the debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature, but you also need
> to override orig-tarball-missing-upstream-signature. Since the tooling
> to check signatures the way you need it is not here, an alternative
> would be to not ship upstream GPG signature.

That's something lintian picks up in the changes file, and there is currently
no way to override those, if I'm not mistaken:

  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=575400


> Also, I don't care about the use of short commands like fq, nq, tq (they
> are currently free), but that's something others may feel is
> inappropriate. You could keep them as is and see if the upload is
> accepted by FTP masters.

Yeah, I thought it would be more confusing than anything to rename the binaries
(and I checked that the names were free using `command-not-found`).


Thanks a bunch for the review,

  nicoo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: