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 <s...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi Alexandru, > > Alexandru Mihail alexandru_mih...@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.
