Bug#1036751: RFS: mini-httpd/1.30-4 [ITA] -- Small HTTP server
Hello Nicholas,
> Nice catch, and if someone using OpenRC is affected, I hope that person
> will be willing to provide a patch for what sounds like a corner-case.
Thanks, I hope so as well
> 1. What is the purpose of the dh_installsystemd override? (hint: see the
> dh_installsystemd man page about --name).
I missed that, fixed now, thanks !
> 2. I found an inaccuracy in the upstream sections of debian/changelog;
> please fix it. Plain old grep or manual header check should be enough
> to spot this.
Can you please elaborate a bit ? Are you referring to my changelog entry or any mistakes in upstream.changelog or older debian/changelog entries ?
> 3. Do the patches have accurate filenames, subjects, and synopses?
> Adopting a package is the perfect time to fix anything misleading.
>
Most of them are fine, I'd change the filename of "0006-fix-makefile", a bit too generic, it changes some install dirs and adds -lssl to a compile target, not exactly something obvious when you read "fix-makefile". I'll come up with a better name.
> 4. Does everything in your changelog entry still accurately reflect the
> package? (ie "not started by default").
Fixed, thank you !
> Would you please push your work to your personal Salsa namespace (fork
> relationship optional), and provide the link to the repo? This way I
Will do, it was a very busy week :)
> P.S. It seems like Debian's copy might be the defacto upstream, as of
> eight years ago, when someone wrote we were "doing a good job"
> maintaining mini_httpd.
Hah, I've heard the same thing from an OpenWRT maintainer a few years ago. We're their defacto upstream as well (and any OpenWRT based router firmwares such as Tomato, etc etc). Long live the red spiral, I guess :)
Have a great day,
Alexandru
------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, June 6th, 2023 at 8:49 PM, Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Alexandru,
>
> Alexandru Mihail alexandru_mihail@protonmail.ch writes:
>
> > Turns out bullseye-backports lintian (2.115.1~bpo11+1) only checks for 4.6.1 Standards, therefore a more serious error (depends-on-obsolete-package lsb-base) was reported by sid lintian.
> > Upon inspecting the situation (lsb-base is now a transitional empty
> > package only here for debootstrap purposes mainly) and reading
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/01/msg00160.html I removed
> > the package dependency entirely. This should be entirely safe.
>
>
> Nice catch, and if someone using OpenRC is affected, I hope that person
> will be willing to provide a patch for what sounds like a corner-case.
>
> > I also added Upstream-Contact into debian/copyright and stripped some
> > trailing whitelines. Package should be lintian O.K. now.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> > Nicholas, my salsa account is verified now, waiting for push permission if that is ok. Is there anything else I should do now about that ?
>
>
> 1. What is the purpose of the dh_installsystemd override? (hint: see the
> dh_installsystemd man page about --name).
>
> 2. I found an inaccuracy in the upstream sections of debian/changelog;
> please fix it. Plain old grep or manual header check should be enough
> to spot this.
>
> 3. Do the patches have accurate filenames, subjects, and synopses?
> Adopting a package is the perfect time to fix anything misleading.
>
> 4. Does everything in your changelog entry still accurately reflect the
> package? (ie "not started by default").
>
> Would you please push your work to your personal Salsa namespace (fork
> relationship optional), and provide the link to the repo? This way I
> can responsibly grant you permissions, because I will have reviewed how
> you work in git :) I can also review from git, if you prefer
>
> Regards,
> Nicholas
>
> P.S. It seems like Debian's copy might be the defacto upstream, as of
> eight years ago, when someone wrote we were "doing a good job"
> maintaining mini_httpd.
Reply to: