Bug#883393: jool Debian packaging
Thank you for your review!
> - d/changelog: do you have any contact with Bjoern Buerger, the
> original author of the ITP?
We talked up to 2018-05-10.
I sent him another email on 2018-05-28, and then another one two days
ago. Both of them have gone unanswered as of now.
> - d/copyright: as upstream, you should either put the expected
> copyright notice in each source file (as explained in the license) or
> put it in a LICENSE file. I say that mostly because just the content
> of COPYING makes it difficult to know if it is licensed as GPL-2 or
> GPL-2 or a later version. The package may be rejected because of this
> issue when uploaded to Debian. To not release a new tarball just with
> that, you can clarify the situation in a "Comment" field.
I have violent feelings about adding a license header to every file in
the project.
I don't have any problems with releasing another tarball, though. The
license information is currently in the README, which I just noticed
is not exported to the tarball, likely because of the .md extension.
Nice catch.
My plan is to
- Remove the "Legal Stuff" section from the README
(https://github.com/NICMx/Jool#legal-stuff), move it to a new LICENSE
file.
- Patch the README.md export.
You reckon this will be enough?
> - d/jool-dkms.install: this shouldn't be a shell script
What's the alternative? It seems I need a dynamic way to compute the
version number, or risk borking it in every release.
> or override Lintian for
> package-supports-alternative-init-but-no-init.d-script with some
> comment in the override.
I'm not getting that warning. Which version of Lintian are you using?
I better try to compile that.
> [Everything else]
OK. I'll try and patch it all on Monday.
Reply to: