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

Bug#912736: RFS: apt-listbugs/0.1.25

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 18:58:04 +0100 David Kalnischkies wrote:

> Hi,

Hello David, nice to see your reply!   :-)

> On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 11:11:29AM +0100, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote:
> > Could someone please build the package from commit
> > [999e167ed8a45ce97283977ec534657b90d808fe],
> > and sponsor its upload to sid?
>   Uploading apt-listbugs_0.1.25.dsc: done.
>   Uploading apt-listbugs_0.1.25.tar.xz: done.
>   Uploading apt-listbugs_0.1.25_amd64.buildinfo: done.
>   Uploading apt-listbugs_0.1.25_source.changes: done.
> Successfully uploaded packages.
> Thanks for your contribution to Debian!

Thanks to you for your super-prompt response to my request for

> Some "unrelated" remarks still:
> >   * updated Homepage field in debian/control to point to the new home on
> >     salsa.debian.org
> Given you use the salsa URI as homepage I would suggest at least moving
> the ./debian/README.Debian to ./README.md if not writing a dedicated

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion: how can I still ship it in
the binary package? I guess I should add a debian/apt-listbugs.docs
file having "README.md" as its only line.
Is that right?

Or maybe I should split debian/README.Debian into a general README.md
and some more specialized doc/*.md documents (and list all of them in

> Also, having some LICENSE file in ./ instead of relying on
> debian/copyright would give that URI more an image of a "homepage" of
> a native tool rather than a second Vcs-Browse of some packaging.

I had thought about doing so, but I could not figure out how to handle
the situation: what information should the LICENSE file contain?
Pretty the same as debian/copyright, I guess.

If this is indeed the case, then I would rather avoid keeping them
consistent (or even identical by copying one into the other) by hand.
But I have to keep debian/copyright in the source package, in order to
comply with Debian Policy (at least, it seems to me that there is a
"should" rule in [Policy 12.5]). At the same time, the LICENSE file
should committed to the git repository (otherwise Salsa will not see
it...). Hence, neither file can be generated at build time by copying
from the other.

Do you have a good solution for this impasse?!?

[Policy 12.5]: <https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile>

> > Thanks for your time and helpfulness!
> Have we talked in the past about moving apt-listbugs under the APT team
> umbrella? Not sure if anyone of us speaks ruby enough to be of
> considerable help in this regard, but we have apt-file and even aptitude
> there, too.

Thanks a lot for offering this: what would it mean, exactly, from a
practical point of view? 

> If you think that might be a good idea feel free to drop us a line on
> IRC #debian-apt or the mailinglist deity@lists.debian.org.

I will sure consider it as an option, depending on what you reply to
the above question.

> Oh and btw: You seem to maintain apt-listbugs for quite a while without
> issues, have you considered applying for DM?

Yes, I have considered applying for the DM status.
I just need to make up my mind, so thank you for encouraging me!   ;-p

 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpsUxTVzCgrh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: