On Thu, 2022-01-13 at 20:54 +0000, John Scott wrote: > You might like to have a look at this mail from Ben Hutchings: > https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/179d6d32466dd13962a3aab251c45242fbf2d8ae.ca...@decadent.org.uk > The reason that none of the other Wi-Fi firmware packages have them is > because they're all non-free (with the exception of ath9k_htc).
Thanks for the link, I'm not subscribed to that list. Makes sense. > I wasn't sure if there was any established convention; my thread "Naming > convention for udebs: -udeb/-installer suffix" didn't garner any > pertinent responses. I've switched the name though. I did a search of a Debian mirror filesystem and found that only the linux and linux-signed-* source packages use the -di suffix, most use the -udeb suffix. The -installer suffix seems to be used only for udeb packages when the source package has the -installer suffix too, such as bootloader installers like grub-installer, with a few exceptions for other udebs that install things. I suggest using the -udeb suffix. > These are all good catches, I'm working on incorporating them and doing > a slow and careful review. Recently on another project I noticed an upstream commit that added copyright information in the middle of a file alongside the functions that were copied from elsewhere. This sort of thing is hard to notice during the manual review of file headers I usually do using mc (after enabling the preview pane and arrow keys for navigation), but some of the copyright review tools might be helpful. I actually detected the list.h LGPL license using debmake -k (as run by check-all-the-things). Apparently the best option is ScanCode but that isn't in Debian yet. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReviewTools > I think you're mistaken here, you should take a look at > /usr/share/dpkg/buildopts.mk which I include via an include directive in > debian/rules. Basically, DEB_BUILD_OPTION_PARALLEL is a helper macro for > the value of parallel from DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS; these are one and the > same. I see, I wasn't aware of this snippet/variable. > That's true. My intent was that, since it's a hidden directory, it would > help remind one that that directory gets created. It seems to've only > caused confusion, so I'll pull it. That seems reasonable if you want to keep it. Maybe add a comment. > Indeed, the documentation is rather old and terse and doesn't address > this issue. I'll probably ask the Reportbug folks and send them a MR > updating the docs. Great. > > Please ask upstream to make a new release, it has been a very long time > > since the last one. > I will do after making some of the following important changes. Thanks. > > Please ask upstream to send FindUSB-1.0.cmake & libusb-zeropacket.diff > > to libusb upstream and then remove them from carl9170fw. > I will ask, but with all due respect, I think this is lower priority and > that I'll have limited ability to help them. Sure. TBH they don't appear to be used by carl9170fw so I'm not sure why they are in the source repository at all. > I do not have a grasp, let alone a good one, of CMake, so this may be a > challenge. The documentation for CMake is fairly comprehensive, until recently I had never touched CMake and didn't understand it but when I needed to figure it out I found it to be reasonable and well documented. > I actually think I'll do one better: I submitted upstream an AppStream > metadata file a while ago, and although they haven't responded to it > yet, perhaps my sending them other changes will get their attention. > AppStream metadata and Debian upstream metadata files have considerable > overlap, and in my personal opinion having good AppStream metadata makes > an upstream metadata file unnecessary, but I'm willing to entertain > arguments to the contrary. I haven't looked at AppStream but I got the feeling they had different audiences or purposes or tools looking at them. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
