[Debian-med-packaging] Fwd: Comments regarding biomaj_1.1.0-1_amd64.changes

[Olivier Sallou]

Hi,
I updated copyright file (solution 3) and scripts to accept arguments.
there is no lintian error and I tested package install/remove after update.

Andreas, can you have a short look to upload the package?

Thanks

Olivier

Le 3/30/11 1:08 PM, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> [med-devel list in CC to give some sign of action in this issue]
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:46:35AM +0200, Olivier Sallou wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I will let you know when  things are fixed so that you can re-upload to
>> ftpmasters.
> I reinspected the packaging and have found issues in debian/copyright.
> I commited a change in SVN and run
>
>    config-edit -application dpkg-copyright -ui none
>
> as suggested by Charles which leads to an error:  IMHO it is caused
> by a sequence of tow License: fields:
>
>    24 Copyright: Copyright (c) 2004, Indiana University
>    25 License: citrina
>    26
>    27 License: CeCILL
>
> I have not verified this thesis - perhaps somebody likes to comment.
>
> In any case the Copyright/License field for
>     Files: debian/*
> are missing (see below).
>
> There is also a lintian warning:
>
>    E: biomaj: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl
>
>
> While I think lintian is not correct here because the license is not GPL
> the package would be rejected automatically because of this error.
> There are three options to fix this:
>
>    1. Simply mention the GPL location on Debian systems at the very
>       end - it might not harm to mention it anyway because it was refered
>       to in the text.
>    2. Use a lintian-override
>    3. Use GPL for debian/* files and thus mentioning GPL location is
>       simply correct.
>
> I'd prefer solution 1. or 3.
>
>> I am still waiting for info regarding maintainers scripts not working
>> with parameters...
> IMHO something might be "unusual" in your debian/rules file - but I'm to
> lazy to check the real problem but rather commited a debian/rules file
> using short dh notation - simply expecting that everything is fine.
> Please verify that all works as expected - as far as I can see it
> produces the same deb but with a much more clear debian/rules file which
> is easier to maintain.
>
> I also added javahelper which is intended to resolve ${java:Depends} but
> I hesitated to remove those single Dependencies mentioned manually in
> your control file.  You might like to check this yourself - I'm not a
> Java packaging expert.
>
> I finally had another look into the "maintainer scripts" issue and think
> I now understood.  My work on the debian/rules file did not helped here
> (feel free to revert if you do not like the change!).  Please have a
> look into
>
>      /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debian/{post,pre}{inst,rm}.ex
>
> Your scripts need to support arguments like
>
>
> case "$1" in
>      configure)
>      ;;
>
>      abort-upgrade|abort-remove|abort-deconfigure)
>      ;;
>
>      *)
>          echo "postinst called with unknown argument \`$1'">&2
>          exit 1
>      ;;
> esac
>
>
> (depending from the script - for sure).  So you are well advised to
> start from those templates and include your code under the appropriate
> argument option.  Ftpmaster is right - this is really an issue.
>
> Kind regards
>
>         Andreas.
>

-- 
gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438  (pgp.mit.edu)
Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335  D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438