Bug#19578: marked as done (libshh*: packaging problems)
Your message dated Fri, 9 Nov 2001 20:49:17 +0100 (CET)
with message-id <Pine.NEB.email@example.com>
and subject line These bugs were already fixed
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Mar 1998 07:04:28 +0000
Received: (qmail 26447 invoked from network); 14 Mar 1998 07:03:20 -0000
Received: from va.debian.org (firstname.lastname@example.org)
by debian.novare.net with SMTP; 14 Mar 1998 07:03:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 3513 invoked from network); 13 Mar 1998 15:45:31 -0000
Received: from pcsw104b.ukc.ac.uk (184.108.40.206)
by va.debian.org with SMTP; 13 Mar 1998 15:45:31 -0000
Received: from merry.bs.net (cpb4@localhost)
by pcsw104b.ukc.ac.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) with floppy id PAA03468;
Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:41:45 GMT
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:41:45 GMT
From: Charles Briscoe-Smith <email@example.com>
Cc: Charles Briscoe-Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: libshh*: packaging problems
Package: libshhmsg, libshhmsg-dev, libshhopt, libshhopt-dev
Version: 1.1.3-1, 1.3.3-1
- Every package must either have the two files
or have both a symlink
/usr/doc/<package> -> <otherpackage>
and a dependency
In the second case, both <package> and <otherpackage> must come from
the same source package.
So I suggest you put the copyright and changelog files in the
shhmsg/shhopt packages, and put symlinks in the -dev packages.
- The copyright licence doesn't seem to be DFSG compliant. It's rather
vague, and contains several dodgy clauses (e.g. the beerware one).
You should either get a clarification from the author (and point him
to <URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html> first!) or it
should move to non-free.
- These libraries are TINY. Are you sure it's worth the overhead of even
making them shared libraries, let alone of making separate packages
for them? If I were you, I'd probably just include the appropriate
files in the source package of snake4, compiling them in directly.
White pages entry, with PGP key: <URL:http://alethea.ukc.ac.uk/wp?95cpb4>
PGP public keyprint: 74 68 AB 2E 1C 60 22 94 B8 21 2D 01 DE 66 13 E2
Received: (at 19578-done) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Nov 2001 19:49:46 +0000
>From email@example.com Fri Nov 09 13:49:46 2001
Received: from hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de [220.127.116.11]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 162Hes-0003UE-00; Fri, 09 Nov 2001 13:49:46 -0600
Received: (qmail 29159 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2001 19:49:19 -0000
Received: from mimas.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de (HELO mimas) (18.104.22.168)
by hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de with SMTP; 9 Nov 2001 19:49:18 -0000
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 20:49:17 +0100 (CET)
From: Adrian Bunk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com, <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: These bugs were already fixed
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
These bugs in packages maintained by Debian QA were only marked as "fixed"
instead of being closed.
Get my GPG key: finger email@example.com | gpg --import
Fingerprint: B29C E71E FE19 6755 5C8A 84D4 99FC EA98 4F12 B400