Bug#683120: RFS: yadifa/1.0.3-1 [ITP]
Hi,
On 2014-03-18 22:34, Markus Schade wrote:> However there is one
question, which I am not sure, what is correct.
> Upstream uses /var/zones as base for its zone files. My guess was
> that this is not the proper location for such files in Debian. So I
> changed it to /var/cache/yadifa like bind9, but I welcome any
> suggestions if there is a more appropriate location.
AFAIK bind9 only stores run-time data in /var/cache/bind (from dynamic
DNS updates, etc). bind9's zone files are in /etc/bind/zones.
The FHS [0] to which Debian adheres (with some exceptions) states for
/var/cache that
"the cached files can be deleted without data loss".
I guess that is not what you want ;-)
I'd either go with /etc/yadifa or /var/lib/yadifa. Check the FHS to
decide which directory fits best.
Note that the example debian/yadifad.conf assumes /var/lib/yadifa.
> I have made some corrections/improvements and re-uploaded the
> package again.
> To access further information about this package, please visit the
> following URL:
>
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/yadifa
>
> Or via dget at
>
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yadifa/yadifa_1.0.3-1.dsc
I'm not a DD so I can't sponsor your package, but here is a quick review:
debian/control
==============
Your Homepage field has trailing whitespace.
If you're using a VCS for your packaging, Vcs-* URLs would be nice (to
simplify contributing to your packaging). You can also use
Debian's infrastructure, see [1].
The Section field of yadifa-dev should be: libdevel.
You're providing static libraries in the -dev package, but not a shared
library package. This is not necessarily wrong, just unusual. Note
that the configure script has an option to build a shared library.
debian/copyright
================
The Copyright field for the first "Files: *" paragraph seems to be
missing data, the NEWS file lists changes up to 2013.
The License field for that same paragraph should contain the license
short name on the first line, which in your case is standardized as
"BSD-3-clause", see [2].
License: BSD-3-clause
<text>
While licensing your packaging under the GPL-2+ is fine, you might want
to consider licensing your patches in debian/patches/* under
BSD-3-clause so that they can easily be including upstream (should you
forward them).
debian/rules
============
You can drop the "Sample debian/rules" boilerplate, it is useless and
has already been removed from newer versions of dh-make.
Regards,
Christian
[0] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/PackagingProject
[2]
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name
Reply to: