This e-mail regards the packaging of the ledger udev rules at
I'm adding email@example.com to CC since I don't
think I can help any more and I guess Stéphane will need a sponsor
soon :) .
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:06:13 +0100
Stéphane Neveu <stefne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see no more warning running lintian -i --pedantic, I also added the
> file ledger-udev.metadata.xml for appstream/modalias
> Do I still need to keep this upstream/latest branch ? I'm asking as
> the package is native now.
No, for a native package that branch makes no sense and should be
Package looks fine now to me from a technical perspective. Raphaël has
already updated the Maintainer and Vcs-* control fields :) . Note
that I have never worked on a native package myself, so I might have
A few more things I noticed / I'm unsure about:
* The bottom part of the BSD-2-clause license you're using doesn't seem
to fit too well: "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND
CONTRIBUTORS …". It's just you I guess, no regents.
* I would drop the word "simply" from the description (both in your
man-page and the xml file). Whether or not adding the udev rules is
simple or not is irrelevant for the users :) .
* postinst: I'm wondering if the `udevadm` commands are really
necessary. My feeling is that since the udev file is installed by
dh_installudev and debhelper doesn't insert those rules, they might
not be required. Maybe someone here has advise (but be sure to check
before dropping the commands; this is really just a feeling).