Bug#751009: RFS: ppp-gatekeeper/0.1.0-201406111015-1 [ITP]
Hi there Eriberto,
On 09/07/2014 09:50 PM, Eriberto wrote:
Your package appears good. We need some last changes to upload it.
2014-09-07 12:36 GMT-03:00 Nigel Kukard <nkukard@lbsd.net>:
Hi there Eriberto,
No problem at all, I really do appreciate your time :)
Oh, thanks! I saw your work, applying the corrections pointed by all
people. So, I will try to help you to finish this package.
I thank you again for your valuable input and time Eriberto.
My new observations:
1. d/control: remove the name 'PPP Gatekeeper' from short description
because when anyone execute an 'apt-cache search', the package name
will be showed. Do an '$ apt-cache search a' and you will see that the
packages names aren't showed in short descriptions.
I have rectified this, thank you for pointing this out.
I'm looking at d-policy #3.4 & #5.6.13 but I can't find what the length
limit is. I kept the entire line to under 80 to be sure.
2. d/copyright:
- About your question, yes, you need split to 'Files: *' and
'Files: debian/*'. The Nigel upstream and Nigel packager can do
different works. Imagine you have your upstream program as 2001-2013
and a package did in 2005. However, you need fix some issues in
packaging. So, you will have an upstream code 2001-2013 and a
packaging 2005-2014 (in other words, your program isn't copyrighted
2014). You can see two examples here[1][2].
[1] http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/v/volatility-profiles/unstable_copyright
[2] http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/p/phpwebcounter-extra/unstable_copyright
- Other issue is that ppp-gatekeeper file says: "Copyright (C)
2008-2014, Linux Based Systems Design". Your d/copyright say:
"Copyright (C) 2010-2014,
Thankyou for pointing this out. I have rectified this mistake and added
a note to my own checklist. :)
I have two questions to ask clarification on:
1. If there were 100 files, each file having a different date range in
the copyright line, would I need to list each and every one?
For instance, say a package is the combination of a few other projects,
its quite possible that some may list 2014, some 2009-2014, some
2004-2005 for instance.
2. My second question is if there are say 5 people listed in the files
copyright line, how would these be properly listed? would the first one
appear on the copyright line in d-control and the rest below it indented
1 space from the left?
Linux Based Systems Design". Note that here
we have another issue: the upstream is Linux Based Systems Design and
the packager is Nigel Kukard. They aren't the same person. So, we
have:
Files: *
Copyright: 2008-2014 Linux Based Systems Design
License: GPL-3+
Files: debian/*
Copyright: 2014 Nigel Kukard <nkukard@lbsd.net>
License: GPL-3+
I always like to put a contact for upstream. So, I suggest it
(implement if you like this):
Files: *
Copyright: 2008-2014 Linux Based Systems Design,
by Nigel Kukard <nkukard@lbsd.net>
License: GPL-3+
You can see an example here[3].
[3] http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/c/core-network/unstable_copyright
Thankyou very much for this. You raise perfectly valid points which I
missed and I fully understand now.
I've also gone through the above links you pasted.
As I may not be the only person that authored the files, I changed "by"
to "contact", I hope this is acceptable.
3. ppp-gatekeeper.README.Debian: you wrote "Shorewall is a recommended
package". Change from recommended to suggested.
Thankyou for this, I will ensure I don't make this mistake again in future.
4. As curiosity, why you says 'Source:
https://gitlab.devlabs.linuxassist.net/ppp-gatekeeper/ppp-gatekeeper'
in d/copyright but uses
'http://download.allworldit.org/ppp-gatekeeper' in d/watch?
The first link is the revision control site used for the project, The
copyright URL points to the revision control site as it is the most up
to date.
The package was downloaded from the second link you mentioned. While the
first site offers limited downloading, it lacks hashes and also doesn't
support signatures. On the second site the sources are hashed and
signed. It also lists all versions nicely and in a nice order. This
download link is also listed in the wiki on the project site.
I can change the URL in the copyright file, I just thought it best to
point to the revision control URL as this is most up to date.
5. You have a Lintian message to fix: 'P: ppp-gatekeeper:
maintainer-script-without-set-e postrm'.[4]
[4] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/maintainer-script-without-set-e.html
I did have /bin/sh -e , but I have now rectified this to explicitly
use set -e :)
I need your last effort to be all right. :-)
I've been over all mails twice, and I am hoping very much that this time
all is good.
I've re-uploaded the latest revision.
https://mentors.debian.net/package/ppp-gatekeeper (its the first one in
the list)
dget -x
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/ppp-gatekeeper/ppp-gatekeeper_0.1.0-201406111015-1.dsc
-N
Reply to: