Paul Gevers wrote: > On 15-07-14 14:54, Yavor Doganov wrote: > > Hmm, but I have not overridden them, I don't feel I should. I have > > informed upstream and I hope it won't happen in subsequent releases. > > Well, to document this fact is exactly why an override would be nice.
OK, I added the override. > But I understand you position, I guess you just want to prevent it > happens again next time, right? Exactly. > I haven't checked, but ftp-masters use also several lintian checks > as auto-reject. So maybe this is even needed to pass the NEW queue. I thought about that; this lintian error is not in the automatic rejects list. > > I'm not cleaning them explicitly either as gnustep-make's distclean > > rule does that. > > Well, the source has to be DFSG-free. How we guarantee that usually is > by building everything from source during the build. If you don't want > to build it, you have to remove them from source and repack I don't understand. It is quite common for a package not to build some part of the source; this is not a problem at all as long as everything is DFSG-compliant. Which is the case here. > > As for the license, debian/copyright is correct. It is true there are > > discrepancies, I'll ask upstream to rectify this. > > Please add a comment field to the copyright file. Otherwise the > ftp-master is going to ask the same questions again (or going to reject > the package). Right; added (in dbuskit.git). > Also noting somewhere that this package is a requisite for > agenda.app is good, e.g. in the ITP. And also by cdplayer.app (not packaged yet). But isn't this self-explanatory? I think libraries w/o reverse dependencies are strongly discouraged. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87mwcahg3w.GNUs_not_UNIX!%[email protected]
