On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 01:16:03 (CEST), Roman Haefeli wrote:

> Hi all
> I checked in my first package. I tried to follow - where possible - very
> closely to pd-motex, which has been already uploaded.
> I would be glad if someone could have a look at it.
> FYI: It is using what I believe is called short-form dh.

indeed, it is.

I've taken a quick look at the package, it's a really small package and
rather easy to review.

Packagingwise, I think it is fine, but I'm umcomfortable with the two
patches. First, please use the patch metadata as described in

But as for the actual patches, I'm rather uncomfortable with
them. The add-license patch adds the complete text of the GPL. I'm not
sure how the ftpteam thinks about it, but to me it feels very
strange. Is upstream aware of the problem, can't they just reissue the
tarball with the complete license text? Moreover, quoting the part "How
to Apply These Term to Your New Programs" is usually also helpful.

I'd be more comfortable if the GPL text was just included in debian/,
read, as non-patch, but still, I really think this file should be part
of the orig.tar.gz. So another approach would be to repackage the
tarball to just include the COPYING file. While we are at it, we could
also use the new Makefile and get rid of the other patch.

what do you think?

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to