Bug#873094: RFS: granite/0.4.1-1 [ITP]
2018-02-03 20:12 GMT+08:00 Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org>:
> - d/changelog:
> As this is not an ITP (where no history is available), re-introduction
> has a history and you need to continue writing it. In other words:
> Please document the changes you have made to the packaging since the
> last upload to Debian.
I did include the old changelogs. Did I fat-fingered?
> - d/control:
> The versions of the B-D on gobject-introspection, valac and libgtk-3-dev
> can be dropped, as even oldstable has it.
OK.
> - d/copyright
> cmake/ParseArguments.cmake -> I cannot see why this is BSD-2?
> Please expand :) If my point is true:
> Do we need to remove this file because of unknown license?
CC-BY-2.5 as shown in wiki.
> lib/Widgets/ModeButton.vala -> Copyright years are 2008-2013 for all
> copyrght holders.
>
> lib/Services/ContractorProxy.vala -> Years wrong, file header says 2011-2013
These lines come from original debian/ provided by upstream. I believe
they track their files better than me.
> New stuff:
> - There is now Boyuan Yang as 2nd uploader. Can you expand on you have
> added him?
This package is packed as part of effort to introduce DDE into Debian
(see https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-deepin/pkg-deepin.git/plain/depgraph/pkg-deepin-dep.svg
), thus it is co-maintained. And what do you mean by "expand on"?
> Misc:
> - On salsa, I think you can delete the branch deb-packaging, can't you?
These are upstream's packaging scripts. I'd like to respect any
(further) changes made by upstream.
> - cmake/ParseArguments.cmake --> The wiki page in the header of the file says
> this may be obsolete and quote: "If you are using CMake 2.8.3 or newer please
> use the CMakeParseArguments macro provided by the default CMake installation
> instead of the code below." Please file that upstream and try to patch
> the build so that the cmake file from cmake is used.
Yes, maybe an issue to upstream. Still it works even with it. Maybe I
can ask them to remove it in the next release...
> Nothing to change, but hint for future packaging:
> You d/copyright is more verbose that it needs to be: It is perfectly
> fine to combine Files: sections sharing the same license, even if
> the authors / copyright years are not always the same.
>
> This will ease work for people reviewing
>
> Hard to explain by words, so a virtual example:
>
> Files: *
> Copyright: 2015,2018 AuthorA <a@example.org>
> License: GPL
>
> Files: B
> Copyright: 2017,2018 AuthorB <a@example.org>
> License: GPL
>
> Files: C
> Copyright: 2016,2017 AuthorA <a@example.org>
> 2016,2017 AuthorB <b@example.org>
> License: GPL
>
> can be simply written as:
>
> Files: *
> Copyright: 2015,2016-2018 AuthorA <a@example.org>
> 2017-2018 AuthorB <b@example.org
> License: GPL
The original copyright did exactly this way combining everything into
a single *. I think a verbose copyright won't harm. Of course other
uploaders can have different opinions. But just keep it untouched...
The package has re-uploaded to mentors.d.o
Thanks for your suggestions and help.
Reply to: