Hi, as you see, I am not always quick. Quite the opposite sometimes… sorry. On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 12:39:48AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > 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 > > README. > > 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? Yes, that should work. > 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 > debian/apt-listbugs.docs)... > > > > > 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. My remark was triggered by salsa proclaiming "No license. All rights reserved" which can be fixed just by having the GPL-2 text in a LICENSE file; so you don't need to maintain two files just an embedded copy of the text as "You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program". > 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 You found out how apt is doing this in a later mail… but apt is really not a role-model here. In fact, it confuses salsa also, just less so. src:apt should rename COPYING.GPL to COPYING and the original COPYING perhaps merged with AUTHORS while a dep5 debian/copyright is written… oh look, a butterfly! How pretty! … What was I talking about again? So yeah, it kinda works what apt is doing, but that doesn't mean its a good idea – it should in fact be changed, but there seem to be always better ways to "waste" our time. ;) > > > 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? Well, not sure given there are a lot of possibilities. Being in a team namespace rather than a user namespace has the advantage that it "looks" more official and access can be e.g. more easily granted to others in case of MIAs (but that of course never happens, thankfully). If the team would also be the "maintainer" we would have deity@lists.debian.org for discussion/bugs rather than a personal private mail inbox: The hoped for most practical change might be increased "cross-pollination" in bugreports then. All in all nothing really changes from a practical point of view in day to day operations I would say, something more like a (beware: buzzword) community building thing (much like README and LICENSE as they don't change the day to day life much either). > > 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 You are talking to someone who couldn't "make up his mind" for years… So as a pro: Just as above, I wouldn't recommend it. ;) Best regards David Kalnischkies
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature