> The issue and ITP talks about there being two packages, a library part > and the client part. Has this changed (I cannot find the library part.)
I did start out to have different packages (client, library, dev); but after discussing with upstream, I decided to mirror the upstream (tarball) release since they release their client as a single tarball and there is no other software that uses the library. For the moment, I would have to use the git tarballs from github instead of what they release as a tested client (integrated tarball of client and library). I thought it would be best to follow the upstream lead on this. > - changelog for an initial release should be only the first line, (as there > are no changes to the debian package on the initial upload) ack > - you are creating an user. [1] > - As per Debian polic 9.3, the username shouldbe an invalid user and start > with an "_" > - If I am not mistaken, you can use tmpfiles.d to specify the > directory /var/lib/openvpn to be owned by openvpn:openvpn, so that > snipped in postinst might not be needed. (please verify) I followed the user name lead on this one, but I'll adjust to match the policy. Thanks. > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/AccountHandlingInMaintainerScripts > - unicode-impl.hpp > I'm not convinced that this (license) issue is a non-issue. It might be > solved in later versions of the file, but the version in the tarball > does not allow modification. > As you are anyway dfsg repacking (at least the version indicates this, > see also below), hows' about removing the file and then reintroducing a > fine one with a patch? This is a difficult one (at least to me). I started investigating this and asking around on #debian-mentors. Therre it was concluded that it was a false positive. But since the licence seems to have changed for this file (the different copies included in Debian indicate this), I can do that, solves your concern. The DFSG was needed because the library used a random binary for testing without sources (some sparc binary iirc). > - files installed in /usr/include > --> you want a -dev package. I'll re-investigate this: since this client is standalone at the moment (cf supra); it should not install any header at all. > - d/copyright > - is not DEP-5 format. > - There is no indication why it is dfsg, and there id no > Files-Exluded section.. so are you repacking at all? The re-packaging was documented in debian/README.source > - For praticality reasons, it is recommended to keep the license of > the debian the same as upstream. Otherwise, package upstreaming > might get more difficult than needed. (GPL2 is anyway incompatibel > with Affero GPL 3; your "or later" safes the day.) > - There is license text for the Gnu Affero General Public License 3, > and it should be probably "AGPL-3" abbreviated. > - Note: I did not do a license review of the source files. Inspired by the openvpn team, I'll review. > - lintian overrides > - you need to comment the overrides WHY you overrode them. ack > - postinst > - remove the useless comment about utf-8, or let me know what you want > to say with it. my bad > - the python part - I think this should be in a dedicated python module > package? > > - S-V could be updated. > > - There is no watch file. This is in discussion with upstream to have a standard download location that can be scanned. At the moment, the download location does not allow indexing. > - The package is in a team namespace on salsa, but d/control does not > indicate that it is team maintained. As the ITP mentioned, part of the work was company sponsored, hence the (default) teamspace. But since I seem to be the only one working on it, I'll move it to a personal space. > As usual, remove moreinfo when you are done updating your package. ack -- g. Marc GPG: 827C FD74 BA46 8152 A041 F3A0 7A6A 4F17 5995 A65B
