Bug#873094: RFS: granite/0.4.1-1 [ITP]
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 11:31:16PM +0800, Yangfl wrote:
> 2018-02-03 20:12 GMT+08:00 Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org>:
>
> > - d/changelog:
> > As this is not an ITP (where no history is available), re-introduction
> > has a history and you need to continue writing it. In other words:
> > Please document the changes you have made to the packaging since the
> > last upload to Debian.
>
> I did include the old changelogs. Did I fat-fingered?
Yes, you've included the old changelogs, but you did not document the
changes you have made to the packaging based on version 0.3.0-2~experimental1.
(So you'll need to document also the changes you've made based on my review...)
Pleae fix that :)
> > - d/control:
> > The versions of the B-D on gobject-introspection, valac and libgtk-3-dev
> > can be dropped, as even oldstable has it.
>
> OK.
>
> > - d/copyright
> > cmake/ParseArguments.cmake -> I cannot see why this is BSD-2?
> > Please expand :) If my point is true:
> > Do we need to remove this file because of unknown license?
>
> CC-BY-2.5 as shown in wiki.
Ok, however it is a bit awkward* if the license is only specified on some
website. Please work toward get this file removed and replaced by stock
CMake's one.
There is no indication in the file or on the website about the copyright
years.
* It does a bit consitute the "Tentacles of Evil" problem, as websites
can change at any time. So I really ask to to look into this even for this
release.
>
> > lib/Widgets/ModeButton.vala -> Copyright years are 2008-2013 for all
> > copyrght holders.
> >
> > lib/Services/ContractorProxy.vala -> Years wrong, file header says 2011-2013
>
> These lines come from original debian/ provided by upstream. I believe
> they track their files better than me.
They might not proficient in writing copyright files or just made a mistake.
But we generally write d/copyright based on analysis on the content of the
individual files so you use the information in the header.
> > New stuff:
> > - There is now Boyuan Yang as 2nd uploader. Can you expand on you have
> > added him?
>
> This package is packed as part of effort to introduce DDE into Debian
> (see https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-deepin/pkg-deepin.git/plain/depgraph/pkg-deepin-dep.svg
> ), thus it is co-maintained. And what do you mean by "expand on"?
I meant "Explain". But as long as Boyuan is consenting being uploader it is
of course ok for me.
> > Misc:
> > - On salsa, I think you can delete the branch deb-packaging, can't you?
>
> These are upstream's packaging scripts. I'd like to respect any
> (further) changes made by upstream.
You can still pull from upstream and cherry pick changes. However, as this
branch might create confusion on the Debian packaging repository, it would be
better to drop it.
> > - cmake/ParseArguments.cmake --> The wiki page in the header of the file says
> > this may be obsolete and quote: "If you are using CMake 2.8.3 or newer please
> > use the CMakeParseArguments macro provided by the default CMake installation
> > instead of the code below." Please file that upstream and try to patch
> > the build so that the cmake file from cmake is used.
>
> Yes, maybe an issue to upstream. Still it works even with it. Maybe I
> can ask them to remove it in the next release...
>
> > Nothing to change, but hint for future packaging:
> > You d/copyright is more verbose that it needs to be: It is perfectly
> > fine to combine Files: sections sharing the same license, even if
> > the authors / copyright years are not always the same.
> >
> > This will ease work for people reviewing
> >
> > Hard to explain by words, so a virtual example:
> >
> > Files: *
> > Copyright: 2015,2018 AuthorA <a@example.org>
> > License: GPL
> >
> > Files: B
> > Copyright: 2017,2018 AuthorB <a@example.org>
> > License: GPL
> >
> > Files: C
> > Copyright: 2016,2017 AuthorA <a@example.org>
> > 2016,2017 AuthorB <b@example.org>
> > License: GPL
> >
> > can be simply written as:
> >
> > Files: *
> > Copyright: 2015,2016-2018 AuthorA <a@example.org>
> > 2017-2018 AuthorB <b@example.org
> > License: GPL
>
> The original copyright did exactly this way combining everything into
> a single *. I think a verbose copyright won't harm. Of course other
> uploaders can have different opinions. But just keep it untouched...
It will make it harder to review this way, but if you like to keep it,
keep it.
> The package has re-uploaded to mentors.d.o
>
> Thanks for your suggestions and help.
Reply to: