[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: debian upload of gss 0.0.25

From: Simon Josefsson
Subject: Re: debian upload of gss 0.0.25
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 09:46:53 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux)

Russ Allbery <address@hidden> writes:

> Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:
>> Hi Russ.  I believe the gss package is ready for upload as well.
>> Lintian output and diff against last release below.  It seems better to
>> upload shishi first, to be able to test that the new gss package builds
>> fine against both the lenny version and the (then) sid version.
>> Thoughts?
> Either way is fine with me!
> I notice from the symbols file that GSS isn't yet using symbol
> versioning.  Is that something that you're considering adding later?  I
> think it's generally a good idea for all shared libraries to use symbol
> versioning if possible.

Indeed, I had been using libtool's -export-symbols-regex which I thought
translated into a version script, but apparently it helps to use an
explicit version script instead.  I'll fix this upstream.

>> I appreciate your review of the packaging files.
> On the gss packaging, the only comments I have are on the debian/copyright
> file.  First, there are a few places where there are multiple paragraphs
> in a section separateed by blank lines, such as:

Ah, thanks, should be fixed now.

> There is also one chunk of freeform text in the debian/copyright file, and
> I believe the current intention of the specification is that everything
> should be part of a field:
> This package was debianized by Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> on
> Tue, 22 Dec 2005 10:16:27 +0100.
> I would just drop this since it really duplicates the contents of the
> first debian/changelog entry (although the date is different, but I'm not
> sure that it matters to record the very first date when the packaging was
> generated).

Removed, thanks for careful review.

There is one part of the copyright formatting rules that is unclear to
me (the wiki page is a bit unwieldy so possibly this is answered there):
Should the copyright notices from the license text in the files be
included in the [LICENSE TEXT] part?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]