On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 06:00:53PM +0100, Stefan Tomanek wrote: > Dies schrieb Nick Leverton ([email protected]): > > > I gather that this is a new package to Debian. Your debian/changelog > > should probably start from new in that case. > > I'm not sure about that and I heard different opinions about it - does > it hurt to keep the old history? OK, it'll survive inside the git repository, > but is removing the history before the package introduction really necessary?
You're right that opinions vary and some uploaders may not mind. > > The new debian/changelog should start with the new version, 0.3.1-1, > > and should Close: your ITP bug #603842 (you've closed it in a version > > which AFAICS has never been in Debian). > > Sure, adding that line would be the first thing I'd do once someone volunteers > to sponsor the package. Ok - my preference as a maintainer is to make the package as ready as possible, as sponsors are often busy. That said they will often make valuable corr^Wcontributions anyway ! > > The source files licensing (author, date and a pointer to COPYING) needs > > to be made explicit in each file, via a comment block near the top: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/03/msg00451.html > > Are you your own upstream ? This could be easy to apply then :) > > Every .c-file has to contain that header? Sure, possible, but seems very > awkward? It helps, the Debian tool licensecheck can then scan and report on the contents of the package. Also if a source is borrowed elsewhere, the authorship is still clear. > > Sorry this took so long to write up, hope you can have a happy > > $FESTIVITIES and write some more cool code for Debian :-) > > Well, thanks for your review, I'll try to do both :-) Thanks for your contribution to Debian ! Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
