Lukas Märdian <sl...@ubuntu.com> writes: > Package: dh-elpa > Version: 2.0.10 > Severity: wishlist > Tags: patch > User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com > Usertags: origin-ubuntu jammy ubuntu-patch > X-Debbugs-Cc: sl...@ubuntu.com > > Hello David, > > the testing situation of dh-elpa isn't very good. > I added a simple autopkgtest to have some basic verification of the dh-elpa > and > dh-elpa-helper functionality.
Sure, see below for comments > diff -Nru dh-elpa-2.0.9/debian/tests/elpa-test/debian/copyright > dh-elpa-2.0.10/debian/tests/elpa-test/debian/copyright > --- dh-elpa-2.0.9/debian/tests/elpa-test/debian/copyright 1970-01-01 > 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 > +++ dh-elpa-2.0.10/debian/tests/elpa-test/debian/copyright 2021-12-09 > 16:36:46.000000000 +0100 > @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ You will need to update the actual debian/copyright file, at least for the embedded all.el. Up to you whether you want claim some copyright on the wrapper stuff. > + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > + along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. > + . > + On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General > + Public License version 3 can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3' > + > +DISCLAIMER: This copyright info was automatically extracted > + from the ELPA package. It might not be accurate. You need > + to throughly verify that the code passes the DFSG, and that > + the info in this file is accurate. In case there are any FIXME > + in this file, these should be fixed. > +NOTE: Don't forget to remove this disclaimer when you've > + performed this verification. Any reason to leave the templatage in? > --- dh-elpa-2.0.9/debian/tests/elpa-test/debian/source/format 1970-01-01 > 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 > +++ dh-elpa-2.0.10/debian/tests/elpa-test/debian/source/format > 2021-12-09 16:36:46.000000000 +0100 > @@ -0,0 +1 @@ > +3.0 (native) That's an odd choice, as very few elpa-foo packages will be native in debian. So you're not really testing the most common useful codepaths.
