Bug#1036751: RFS: mini-httpd/1.30-4 [ITA] -- Small HTTP server
Hello Nicholas,
> Sorry, my mistake. I meant to write "debian/copyright". One or more
> entries in the copyright file conflicts with upstream evidence.
No problem, I think I found what you were referring to and corrected our copyright, upstream is right. I documented the changes in the changelog.
> > > Would you please push your work to your personal Salsa namespace (fork
> > > relationship optional), and provide the link to the repo?
https://salsa.debian.org/alexandru_mihail/mini-httpd
Forked from master of:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mini-httpd
> speaking these patch fixups aren't release critical, and you can ignore
> them if you'd like.
I will fix them, it's fine :)
Also, I uploaded again to mentors last night.
Thanks and farewell,
Alexandru
------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, June 10th, 2023 at 6:52 PM, Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
Reply to: