Hi Norwid, just a few thoughts: Am Mittwoch, dem 18.01.2023 um 18:22 +0100 schrieb Norwid Behrnd: > Dear subscribers, > > recently, I packaged `markdownlint`,[1] a syntax checker for markdown > implemented in Ruby, for Debian as `ruby-mdl`. Because this is a program, IMHO the package should have been called "markdownlinter". You could have split it into the binary part (markdownlinter) and a library part (ruby-mdl), though. IMHO there is no clear policy to enforce here, but an application's package shouldn't be named like a library. [..] > With the manual about packaging Ruby gems for Debian[4] and gem2deb,[5] I > request advice how to proceed for such an adjustment, i.e. a merge into your > git repository? Or, does it suffice to share the knowledge with you that > there is a .deb `ruby-mdl` to prevent an other of you prepares a .deb of this > name, and then to continue hosting the relevant data in the salsa instance > under my name? I would suggest to move the package and join the team. Then the team members have the package on their radar, and you can follow what's going on with Ruby. There is a transition currently going on. Maybe you want to help with that? There will also be a meeting in Paris in a February. https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Meeting/Paris2023 > In retrospect, there equally are two questions: > > * Because `ruby-mdl` is my first contribution leading to a .deb on Debian, I'm > an uploader. Does assembling the necessary data equate that a maintainer of > this .deb, i.e. should I/should I equally adjust this entry for the Debian > package tracker? You have put the team down as maintainer, although the team isn't responsible for the package :) Actually, it would have been appropriate to mark yourself down as maintainer. That's not a question of how many packages one maintains or if one maintains them as DD, as DM or as a new contributor. Maintainer and Uploader reflect who really is maintaining the package and who is uploading it (IIRC this distinction is more historical). In teams, the team is usually the maintainer, and Uploaders holds the people, who frequently care about and upload the package. But just because this is a Ruby-related package, one cannot put the team down if the package is not under the umbrella of the team. > * GitHub's project page about `markdownlint` counts 52 contributors to > `markdownlint`. To extract their names and the first year of contribution, > I wrote two small scripts to assist the adjustment of file > `/debian/copyright`. I don't think that this is necessary. IMHO you have to extract all Copyright statements from the code, not the contributions. In case of doubt, it might be appropriate to say "<copyright> <years> <author> and contributors". You actually don't know if each contributions was even Copyright-worthy and/or if they have been done with or without transferring the copyright. > Now, though `gem2deb` creates the three git branches > of `master`, `pristine-tar`, and `upstream`, does the creation of an extra > branch interfere badly with the intended layout of Ruby gem packages for > Debian? Because it does not change the source code of the Ruby code > (compared to what `gem2deb` fetches from the rubygems database) it does not > appear like a bug fix `upstream` should include before merging the results > into `master`. The layout is based on the layout necessary to use git-buildpackage: http://honk.sigxcpu.org/projects/git-buildpackage/manual-html/gbp.html "upstream" means the unchanged source code as provided by the orig tarball. "master" or "main" or "debian/unstable" (the so called "debian-branch") is a branch where the Debian packaging files (debian/) have been added to the upstream branch. And pristine-tar contains the output produced by the homonym command. So all changes go to the debian-branch and only into debian/. There can be multiple debian-branches, e.g. one for stable and one for unstable and one for experimental, ... > On the other hand, I would welcome if the repository to package > `markdownlint` as `ruby-mdl` for Debian would include these two short extra > codes (e.g., an other user might be interested to build the package when > `markdownlint` on rubygems has been updated). What would be your advise on > this point? If you really need those scripts, just put them into debian/. No need for any other branch. Regards, Daniel -- Regards, Daniel Leidert <dleidert@debian.org> GPG-Key RSA4096 / BEED4DED5544A4C03E283DC74BCD0567C296D05D GPG-Key ED25519 / BD3C132D8B3805D1808123AB7ACE00941E338C78 https://www.fiverr.com/dleidert
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part