Bug#693230: Fwd: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]
Date: Thursday, January 07, 2016, 05:54:29 AM
From: Tobias Frost <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(btw, please configure your MTA to wrap your mails)
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay <email@example.com>
> On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote:
> > - Is the patch forwarded to upstream?
> The non vendor specific parts of it, you mean? I plan to further
> discuss other aspects of it with him, yes... I have provided him
> with the results of package builds but he hasn't commented...
The Makefile looks buggy to me, not vendor-specific: Hardcoded paths
are bad. But ok, a patch will do it for now. However, please then set
the patch headers appropiately, especially the Forwarded one with (if
available) a link to more information.
> > - Please B-D on debhelper >=9 not debhelper >=9.0
> > (The versioned depends could even go, as debhelper 9 is already in
> I take your point about its setting, but I think I'd rather keep
it explicitly noted...
> > - d/rules: Are the lines setting CPPFLAGS and friend really needed?
> As I recall, those were needed to clean up the hardening related
With debhelper 9 and compat 9 this is no longer needed.
You can cleanup your d/rules even more: This is enough:
- the dh_installchangelogs --keep HISTORY is not needed, Debian users
know that they have to look on changelog.gz
- dh_installdocs --link-doc=multimail just adds complexity, saving
- dh_auto_install --destdir=debian/multimail destdir is automatically
figured out by dh_auto_install.
- The license is actually GPL-3+
- I saw a file with, 1996-1997 Kolossvary Tamas, (d/copyright: 1997
- John Zero 1996-1997
- Toth Istwan seems also to have contributed 1997
- Ingo Brueckl is missing
- The color files have certain authors, they should be added.
- Are the years for your contribution right? It says 2013-16 but there
is no changelog entry from after 2009 (beside the latest one)
- bluewave.h... Well, that scares me. Because the license terms say
read "THE BLUE WAVE STRUCTURE DOCUMENTATION".
However, this document does not say that bluewave.h can be distributed,
just that you are allowed to use the structs.
Beside that (lets assume the header is covered), there is only right of
use, that does not neccessarily include the right for distribution and
the right for modification. (Please ask on debian-legal)
Your changelog is quite verbose, that is good, but you do not need to
overdo it -- for example is would be enough to say "Add homepage" or
"New Maintainer". (as said, not wrong, no need to change, just maybe
something to reduce effort on your side)
However, there are some changes where the "why has this changed" is not
obvious. In this case you should spend a few words on the why, because
the "what" is self-explained by the diff of the package.
Example here is the line about the Makefile: The reader will not have
an idea why this has been changed, which is very impportant purpose of