On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 18:32 -0300, Leandro Cunha wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 6:03 PM Phil Wyett <philip.wy...@kathenas.org> wrote: > > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > > > Hi Leandro, > > > > Thanks for taking time to create this package and your contribution to > > Debian. > > > > Review... > > > > 1. Build: OK > > > > 2. Lintian: INFORMATION > > > > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:1106] > > N: > > N: This manual page uses the \' groff sequence. Usually, the intent is to > > N: generate an apostrophe, but that sequence actually renders as an acute > > N: accent. > > N: > > N: For an apostrophe or a single closing quote, use plain '. For single > > N: opening quote, i.e. a straight downward line ' like the one used in > > shell > > N: commands, use '\(aq'. > > N: > > N: In case this tag was emitted for the second half of a '\\' sequence, > > this > > N: is indeed no acute accent, but still wrong: A literal backslash should > > be > > N: written \e in the groff format, i.e. a '\\' sequence needs to be > > changed > > N: to '\e' which also won't trigger this tag. > > N: > > N: Please refer to Bug#554897, Bug#507673, and Bug#966803 for details. > > N: > > N: Visibility: info > > N: Show-Always: no > > N: Check: documentation/manual > > N: Renamed from: acute-accent-in-manpage > > N: > > N: > > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:1119] > > N: > > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:1133] > > N: > > I: gpp: acute-accent-in-manual-page [usr/share/man/man1/gpp.1.gz:483] > > N: > > I: gpp source: superficial-tests [debian/tests/control] > > N: > > N: The source package declares tests in the debian/tests/control file but > > N: provides only tests with a superficial restriction. > > N: > > N: Please provide more meaningful tests. > > N: > > N: Please refer to > > N: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/08/msg00003.html, > > N: Bug#932870, and > > N: > > https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/tree/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst > > N: for details. > > N: > > N: Visibility: info > > N: Show-Always: no > > N: Check: testsuite > > N: > > > > Please consider looking at for a future release/upload. > > > > 3. Licenses check: ISSUES > > > > philwyett@ks-windu:~/Development/builder/debian/mentoring/gpp-2.28$ lrc > > en: Versions: recon 1.10.1 check 3.3.9-1 > > > > Parsing Source Tree .... > > Reading copyright .... > > Running licensecheck .... > > > > d/copyright | licensecheck > > > > LGPL-3 | FSFAP INSTALL > > LGPL-3 | LGPL-3+ src/gpp.c > > > > 4. Build Twice (sudo pbuilder build --twice <package>.dsc): OK > > > > 5. Install (No previous installs): OK > > > > 6. Upgrade (Over previous installs if any): OK > > > > Summary... > > > > Please consider addressing the issues raised where applicable and remove the > > 'moreinfo' tag when doing next/fixed upload.s > > > > Phil > > > > -- > > > > Website: https://kathenas.org > > > > Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/ > > > > Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg > > This is not included in the backlog of this package at this time. I > don't consider this something urgent/relevant and it is also something > maintained upstream. > The copyright file have already passed through several people and have > been like this for decades in Debian and there is nothing to be > changed either. > I don't really like the idea of changing what is maintained upstream, > now if it was something very wrong and that needed to be changed > urgently it would have been done in 2020 in the package. :) > And there were contributions to the code along with a DD at the time > that came from the Debian test suites as autopkgtest. > Anyway thank you! >
Hi Leandro, These reviews are done to assist the submitter to mentors about issues they may wish to look at. Maintaining a package is an evolution of it via updates, changes, bugs, security and deep dives etc. making the package for Debian in conjunction with upstream the best it can be for the end user. The lintian issues raised can be looked at over time to see if they are valid and rectified where necessary, I stated as much. The inconsistencies seen in the 'debian/copyright' versus the upstream files themselves needs to be investigated and IMHO rectified immediately where required. A larger audit of the 'debian/copyright' can be undertaken over time to see if what is contained is correct and make any changes/additions if needed. At the end of the day, it is the decision of a Debian Developer (DD) if the package is to be uploaded, in whatever condition that may be. Regards Phil -- Website: https://kathenas.org Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/ Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
