Hi Alexandru,
Alexandru Mihail writes:
> Turns out bullseye-backports lintian (2.115.1~bpo11+1) only checks for 4.6.1
> Standards, therefore a more serious error (depends-on-obsolete-package
> lsb-base) was reported by sid lintian.
> Upon inspecting the situation (lsb-base is now a transitional empty
> package only here for debootstrap purposes mainly) and reading
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/01/msg00160.html I removed
> the package dependency entirely. This should be entirely safe.
Nice catch, and if someone using OpenRC is affected, I hope that person
will be willing to provide a patch for what sounds like a corner-case.
> I also added Upstream-Contact into debian/copyright and stripped some
> trailing whitelines. Package should be lintian O.K. now.
Thank you.
> Nicholas, my salsa account is verified now, waiting for push permission if
> that is ok. Is there anything else I should do now about that ?
>
1. What is the purpose of the dh_installsystemd override? (hint: see the
dh_installsystemd man page about --name).
2. I found an inaccuracy in the upstream sections of debian/changelog;
please fix it. Plain old grep or manual header check should be enough
to spot this.
3. Do the patches have accurate filenames, subjects, and synopses?
Adopting a package is the perfect time to fix anything misleading.
4. Does everything in your changelog entry still accurately reflect the
package? (ie "not started by default").
Would you please push your work to your personal Salsa namespace (fork
relationship optional), and provide the link to the repo? This way I
can responsibly grant you permissions, because I will have reviewed how
you work in git :) I can also review from git, if you prefer
Regards,
Nicholas
P.S. It seems like Debian's copy might be the defacto upstream, as of
eight years ago, when someone wrote we were "doing a good job"
maintaining mini_httpd.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
