Hi Alexandru, Alexandru Mihail <alexandru_mihail@protonmail.ch> writes: >> 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 ? Sorry, my mistake. I meant to write "debian/copyright". One or more entries in the copyright file conflicts with upstream evidence. Our obligation is to accurately represent upstream's claims; however, if you think the existing state better represents reality, and that upstream's copy is inaccurate, then please do something like 1. Correct our copy of upstream's claims. 2. Make a note about how the file previously contained a different claim, which you think is correct, and write why. The field that is used for this can be (quickly) found in this documentation: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ >> 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. I agree most are fine, and yes the one you've pointed out could be nicer. The one I'm concerned about has a subject that doesn't appear to describe what the patch actually does, which is misleading. Strictly speaking these patch fixups aren't release critical, and you can ignore them if you'd like. >> 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 :) No worries :) >> 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 :) Wow, I guess it's true then, and that your work will benefit more people than anticipated! This makes me think of the Civil Infrastructure Platform (https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/_media/civilinfrastructureplatform/2017-08-cip-debconf-r5.pdf) > Have a great day, Likewise, you too! Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature