> OK. I got a package. The repo is at > > https://github.com/dkogan/notion-scripts
That was quick, great. Right now a $ git-buildpackage fails for me with the message "gbp:error: upstream is not a valid branch", and if I try to checkout the upstream branch, I get into 'detached HEAD' state with HEAD is now at b9bd818... updated README, verify_index.pl to refer to "notion" Not sure what's going on there. > This is a plain git-buildpackage repository. Debian branch is "master", while > the upstream branch is "upstream". I did make one patch to the upstream copy > itself (updating the README and such), so please merge that in, if you can. Please don't make any changes outside of the debian folder, but rather create a debian patch for them. If the patch looks suitable for an inclusion upstream, this will be done and then the patch can be dropped on the next upstream import. Let's simply make that a policy please. :) While I agree that some changes to the README and verify_index.pl are in order, your changes look suitable only for the Debian package. In the upstream version, the README is part of the contrib repository, so I don't think it should refer to the contrib repository through an external url. And also in verify_index.pl, upstream it should refer to the contrib directory, while in the Debian package it should refer to the notion-scripts directory. Can you somehow revert these changes? I'll do something upstream and then you/we can create a debian patch. > Another thing to note is that I'm installing all the scripts to > /usr/share/notion, NOT to /etc/X11/notion. /etc is for config files, and none > of > the scripts are such. I do realize that Debian doesn't conform to this > standard > very rigidly (/etc/X11 and /etc/init.d is full of non-config files), but no I > see no reason to violate this here. I completely agree. > - Should notion-scripts depend on any particular version of notion? I left it > unversioned for now I think we can leave it at that. > - I left the Suggests field in debian/control as it was. More scripts have > been > added since the last package was up-to-date, so this list is probably > incomplete now Actually I think we should drop all the current suggests, and only potentially suggest packages that would benefit the script collection as a whole (I can't think of any right now). This is how the irssi-scripts and vim-scripts packages handle it. > - The web addresses in debian/control don't exist yet. If this package becomes > hosted on Alioth next to notion itself, these will become correct Okay, I'm not sure what is necessary to get it hosted on Alioth, probably Arnout can help here. > - I listed myself as the maintainer. I don't have the rights to do this right > now, so this assumes that somebody reading this is a DD willing to sponsor > this package. Otherwise, the Maintainer field needs to change. The Notion package is also sponsored, so this will probably be the way to go. > - Since the scripts live in THIS package, not in the "notion" package, the > copyright information relating to 'contrib' should be removed from notion's > debian/copyright Yes, and for this we need to drop the contrib folder from the source package of the notion package. > - LICENSE file says GPL3 unless otherwise stated, but some other places state > "public domain" unless otherwise stated. This is a discrepancy that should > be > resolved. The GPL3 seems to be the wrong one between the two. Ugh, weird. The ion3-scripts package does not contain such a LICENSE file, so I don't even know where it comes from. We'll change this upstream once I've figured out what's going on there. > - Some of the scripts had an explicit copyright, but no explicit license. How > are these to be treated? I'm calling these out as unspecified in the > debian/copyright. Do these revert to "public domain"? Most of them are by Etan Reisner. I've asked him about it and will let you know about the response. You can find us in #notion on freenode btw. > - The debian/copyright had some of its licenses stated incorrectly (mostly > things like GPL vs LGPL, GPL2 vs GPL2+, etc). I corrected these. If anything > more needs to happen, I'm bringing it up here. I thought I had been rather careful with this ... Anyway, two entries seem to be missing from the new file, is that on purpose? These are: scripts/query_url.lua (C) 2005 Reuben Thomas and "released under the GPL", which can only mean GPL Version 1. scripts/xkbion.lua (C) Sergey Redin with LICENSE UNSPECIFIED Regards, Philipp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
