Bug#752339: Some questions about RFS: dbuskit/0.1.1-1 [ITP]

[Yavor Doganov <yavor@gnu.org>]

Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 15-07-14 14:54, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > Hmm, but I have not overridden them, I don't feel I should.  I have
> > informed upstream and I hope it won't happen in subsequent releases.
> 
> Well, to document this fact is exactly why an override would be nice.

OK, I added the override.

> But I understand you position, I guess you just want to prevent it
> happens again next time, right?

Exactly.

> I haven't checked, but ftp-masters use also several lintian checks
> as auto-reject. So maybe this is even needed to pass the NEW queue.

I thought about that; this lintian error is not in the automatic
rejects list.

> > I'm not cleaning them explicitly either as gnustep-make's distclean
> > rule does that.
> 
> Well, the source has to be DFSG-free. How we guarantee that usually is
> by building everything from source during the build. If you don't want
> to build it, you have to remove them from source and repack

I don't understand.  It is quite common for a package not to build
some part of the source; this is not a problem at all as long as
everything is DFSG-compliant.  Which is the case here.

> > As for the license, debian/copyright is correct.  It is true there are
> > discrepancies, I'll ask upstream to rectify this.
> 
> Please add a comment field to the copyright file. Otherwise the
> ftp-master is going to ask the same questions again (or going to reject
> the package).

Right; added (in dbuskit.git).

> Also noting somewhere that this package is a requisite for
> agenda.app is good, e.g. in the ITP.

And also by cdplayer.app (not packaged yet).  But isn't this
self-explanatory?  I think libraries w/o reverse dependencies are
strongly discouraged.