uploaded first pkg: pd-motex

[Reinhard Tartler]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 07:37:11 (CEST), Reinhard Tartler wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 00:22:25 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
>> On 16/08/10 17:47, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that this thread gets easily hijacked ;)  Returning to the
>>> Subject, I think pd-motex is ready for upload, thanks all for the
>>> feedback!
>>
>> How are you editing debian/changelog? The timestamp is old!
>>
>> Also, there is no need to ship the GPL text in the package. It seems
>> like no patch or file tries to read the license, so no need to ship it
>> (we already have the copyright file).
>
> Uh, why do you want to have the LICENSE.txt file removed from the
> upstream tarball? That seems rather blunt to me.

Ah no, you meant to not ship it in the binary package, not to remove it
from the orig.tar.gz. Yes, that's a valid concern. This patch to the
Makefile should fix this:

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index acbd0da..11feccf 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -192,8 +192,6 @@ install-doc:
 	test -z "$(strip $(PDOBJECTS))" || \
 		$(INSTALL_FILE) $(PDOBJECTS:.pd=-help.pd) \
 			$(DESTDIR)$(objectsdir)/$(LIBRARY_NAME)
-	$(INSTALL_FILE) README.txt $(DESTDIR)$(objectsdir)/$(LIBRARY_NAME)/README.txt
-	$(INSTALL_FILE) LICENSE.txt $(DESTDIR)$(objectsdir)/$(LIBRARY_NAME)/LICENSE.txt
 
 install-examples:
 	test -z "$(strip $(EXAMPLES))" || \


Hans, what do you think about removing these two lines upstream? Users
are very unlikely to look these two files up in those places anyway.

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4