Hi Lukas, > This e-mail regards the packaging of the ledger udev rules at > https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team/ledger-udev > > I'm adding debian-security-tools@lists.debian.org to CC since I don't > think I can help any more and I guess Stéphane will need a sponsor > soon :) . > > > Hi Stéphane, > > 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 > > Great! > >> 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 > removed. > > 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 > missed something. >
Thank you Raphaël ! > > 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. > You're right, I've updated the license to MIT > * 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 :) . > Sure, done :) > * 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). > I can remember I've already made a try without these udevadm commands previously and it was not working as expected, but maybe I had missed something... Many thanks again Lukas, Best regards, Stéphane.
