Bug#738920: RFS: obsession/20130822-1 [ITP] -- Session management helpers for lightweight desktop environments
2014-02-16 13:47 GMT-03:00 Fabien Givors (Debian) <f+debian@chezlefab.net>:
> Hi Eriberto,
Hi! Sorry for my delay.
> On 16/02/2014 13:24, Eriberto wrote:
>> d/changelog: the initial realease is your first work in the package.
>> So, d/changelog must have only 'Initial release (Closes: #731278)'.
> Ok, I suppose the changes I was mentioning in the changelog are to be
> put in the README.source.
No. You should put this informations in changelog, except when doing
an initial release. Please, see an example here:
http://sources.debian.net/src/netmate/0.2.0-3/debian/changelog
>> d/patches/copyright: is unusual fix the copyright notices in upstream
>> code. I suggest to remove it.
> Ok. Anyway, the patch has been forwarded upstream, who told me he'll try
> to apply it ASAP.
Ok. Is a good idea send to upstream but not usual fix the code by patch.
>> d/README.source: must be used to list modifications that you made,
>> definitely, in the upstream source code.
> So that doesn't include patches or does it?
Not include patches. Patches are temporary. You must use the
README.source, e.g., to say that you wrote a new manpage because the
upstream manpage is short and confuse. Or if you remade the tarball
because you removed a file that injures the DFSG.
>> Building, I can see some lintian warnings. Please, see
>> http://eriberto.pro.br/blog/?p=1289
> I've seen the remaining I and P issues (I'm always running lintian on
> both the source and the binary with options --pedantic --show-overrides
> --display-info --display-experimental --color auto -i):
> - one P about upstream changelog missing. I could try to dump "git log<<
> of his repository, but would that make the package better?
This is optional. I do it sometimes...
> - one P about sources not being gpg-checkable. I'm afraid I can't do
> much here. Except maybe asking upstream to sign his tarballs... Wouldn't
> that be a bit pedantic for a project hosted by bitbucket?
No problems here. I have severals warnings about it.
> - two I about hardening-no-fortify-functions. I admit I haven't tried to
> solve this one, but I'm sure tho CPPFLAGS are given to the C++ compiler.
> So I assumed it was a false-positive.
This is the problem. :-) Generally, has a solution. Please, try here:
https://wiki.debian.org/Hardening
Regards,
Eriberto
Reply to: