You're right, I've fixed that. @Drew, what's your take on the copyright thing? Shall we make everything that is marked as BSD upstream (perhaps dubiously) as BSD?
Cheers, Nico On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:56 PM Drew Parsons <[email protected]> wrote: > Looks good. From the man page, they've updated --ddeb-migration to > --dbgsym-migration. We might as well use the current nomenclature. > > Drew > > > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 16:32 +0000, Nico Schlömer wrote: > > Thanks for the hint! Did just that. > > > > Cheers, > > Nico > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 6:11 PM Graham Inggs <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Hi Nico > > > > > > You can copy what I did for deal.ii here [1]. > > > The updated version of debhelper is needed so that it understands > > > ddebs. > > > The version after 'dh_strip --ddeb-migration' is the new version > > > number (the one you are uploading) suffixed with a '~'. > > > > > > Regards > > > Graham > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/deal.ii.git > > > /commit/?id=a3dd3b46448be9cb2107b1eb4fa0c21adee95fb7 > > > > > > > > > On 23/05/2016 14:51, Nico Schlömer wrote: > > > >> W: libsuperlu5-dbg: empty-binary-package > > > >> Looks like debug symbols automatically went into libsuperlu5- > > > dbgsym, > > > >> so libsuperlu5-dbg is redundant (i.e. rename in > > > debian/control. Or > > > >> specify -dbg as the debug package in debian/rules, e.g. with > > > dh_strip). > > > > > > > > If it's build automatically, can't we just get rid of the -dbg > > > entry in > > > > debian/control altogether? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Nico > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM Nico Schlömer <nico.schloemer@gma > > > il.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>> That's dodgy how upstream handled the non-free in > > > MATLAB/time.m. All > > > >> they did was delete Mathwork's copyright statement. It's on > > > their head. > > > >> > > > >> Indeed. All files that are listed as exceptions from the BSD > > > license > > > >> (except mc64ad.*) in debian/copyright now have a BSD copyright > > > header as > > > >> well, btw. It very much looks like they are dual-licensed now. > > > Shall we > > > >> take this for granted? I guess we could remove some complication > > > from > > > >> debian/copyright with this. > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Nico > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:19 PM Drew Parsons <[email protected] > > > g> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Should be good to go. > > > >>> > > > >>> That's dodgy how upstream handled the non-free in > > > MATLAB/time.m. All > > > >>> they did was delete Mathwork's copyright statement. It's on > > > their head. > > > >>> > > > >>> Drew > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 10:15 +0000, Nico Schlömer wrote: > > > >>>> Drew, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 5.2.1 came out yesterday with some of my PRs applied. Can you > > > import > > > >>>> it please? I'd then go through the remaining issues. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > >>>> Nico > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 9:43 PM Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian. > > > org> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 11:00 +0000, Nico Schlömer wrote: > > > >>>>>>> More important is that some dfsg files are still in the git > > > >>>>> tree. > > > >>>>>>> MATLAB/{spypart.m,time.m} and DOC/*ug.pdf. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Aha yes. (Is the user guide really nonfree?) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The argument is that the pdf is the useful bit, like a binary > > > >>>>> program. > > > >>>>> Just as we need the source for binary files, for the same > > > reason > > > >>>>> we > > > >>>>> want the source (the latex files) for the pdf files. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Unfortunately, I have no experience with automatically > > > creating > > > >>>>> dfsg > > > >>>>>> tarballs, and there's a fair chance I'll do it incorrectly. > > > I'd > > > >>>>>> appreciate if someone could take over from here. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I've tidied up the dfsg handling, listing the reject files in > > > >>>>> debian/copyright. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The package builds fine (and petsc3.7 seems happy with it). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The last step is to check lintian, > > > >>>>> lintian -i superlu_5.2.0+dfsg1-1_amd64.changes > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> There's a handful of warnings, have a go at fixing them: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> W: superlu source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique > > > >>>>> (paragraph at line 109) > > > >>>>> There are 2 licence short-names "permissive". Give one a > > > distinct > > > >>>>> short name from the other. permissive-colamd or something. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> W: superlu source: ancient-standards-version 3.9.5 (current > > > is > > > >>>>> 3.9.8) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> W: libsuperlu5-dbg: empty-binary-package > > > >>>>> Looks like debug symbols automatically went into > > > libsuperlu5- > > > >>>>> dbgsym, > > > >>>>> so libsuperlu5-dbg is redundant (i.e. rename in > > > debian/control. > > > >>>>> Or > > > >>>>> specify -dbg as the debug package in debian/rules, e.g. with > > > >>>>> dh_strip). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks for your packaging efforts. > > > >>>>> Drew > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > > >>>>>> Nico > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:48 PM Drew Parsons <dparsons@debi > > > an.or > > > >>>>> g> > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 09:49 +0000, Nico Schlömer wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> I've pushed some more changes to [1] (including a patch) > > > and > > > >>>>> it's > > > >>>>>>> now > > > >>>>>>>> compiling and installing alright. I guess a review would > > > be > > > >>>>> in > > > >>>>>>> order. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > >>>>>>>> Nico > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> [1] alioth:/git/debian-science/packages/superlu.git > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
