Bug#752116: RFS: drmips/1.2.2-1 [ITP]

[Bruno Nova <brunomb.nova@gmail.com>]

Thank you Eriberto for your extensive feedback! (and I thought my package was reasonably good! :) )
Thank you Peter for your comment as well.
I was going to answer only after I had uploaded a new package.

> Hmm, this is an interesting point.  The "education" section was added by
> the FTP Masters back in 2012, and grep-dctrl -FSection education seems
> to show me at least 128 binary packages matching that (e.g. gcompris,
> kanadic, scratch, etc).  See the list of sections in Debian Policy 2.4;
> it seems that the webpage needs to be updated.

I also thought 'education' was a valid section: lintian doesn't complain, Synaptic shows a "friendly" name translated to my language for that section, vim doesn't mark it in red, and Ubuntu has some packages in that section. And the Debian Policy mentions that section indeed.

Should I leave it in 'education', or should I change it? Maybe to 'java', or 'electronics' which is also a good choice. It's probably better to change.

>>>     - I think that Vsc-Git should be
>>> 'https://bitbucket.org/brunonova/drmips -n debian'.
>>
>> Hm, I think you mean "-b debian" here :)
>
>
> Yes, you are right. The 'b' is near of the 'n' in keyboard. A typo. Thanks!

Something seemed wrong to me here as well :).

But I didn't know the argument for this field was the argument for 'git clone' (I thought it had to be a URL).

>    - In long description, what is FEUP? Where (country) is FEUP?

FEUP means "Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto", and it's in Portugal. I'll add it to the description.

> 3. d/copyright:
>     - You must list all authors and licenses in thos file. Use the
> command 'egrep -sriA25 '(public domain|copyright)' *' to help you.

I was missing the copyrights for the files in cmake/Modules/, and I think that's all.
By "authors" you mean the names/emails of the people/companies that appear in the copyright notices of the source files, right?
The copyright of cmake/Modules/UseLATEX.cmake caused me some confusion, though. But I found a package in Ubuntu (feel++) that uses that file, so it should be ok.

>    - From Debian policy[2]:
>
> "Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the
> Artistic license, the GNU GPL (versions 1, 2, or 3), the GNU LGPL
> (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) should
> refer to the corresponding files under
> /usr/share/common-licenses,[
> 119] rather than quoting them in the
> copyright file."
>
>     - I suggest you to use the conventional license texts provided by
> Debian, when applicable. These text are available at
> /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/licenses/.

But the template texts there for those licenses also include a "short summary" of the licenses, before the pointer to the full text.

Should I remove that and put only the pointer?

> 5.d/links: I didn't understand your intend with this file.

The package installs some PDF manuals to /usr/share/drmips/doc/, and the program searches for them in that place (using a relative path).
The link is just so the manuals are also accessible from /usr/share/doc/, the usual place in Linux for documentation.
Should I remove the link?

Some additional questions:
* Should the Priority in debian/control be 'optional' or 'extra'?
* Should the urgency in debian/changelog be 'low' or 'medium'? (the default was changed recently, I think)

--
Bruno Nova