On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 09:38 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> 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
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/.
> 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.

The reason why I added the LICENSE file in the first place is because
the Makefile is hardcoded to install it. Probably I shouldn't have done
it as a patch. But then again in the thread about pd-motex people agreed
that it would be better to create a symlink to the respective license
in /usr/share/common-licenses/.
So actually, I could remove "install LICENSE" line in the Makefile which
makes the add-license.patch obsolete  and let debian/rules do the
symlink and the result will be the same. What do you think?

>  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.

Instead of using a quilt patch should I simply replace the Makefile with
the new one and check that into the master branch?


pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to