[Python-modules-team] Bug#753785: Bug#753785: flask-silk: please ship icons in a new package which does not depends on python

Dustin Kirkland kirkland at ubuntu.com
Mon Jul 14 19:35:30 UTC 2014

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Sebastian Ramacher
<sramacher at debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Dustin
> On 2014-07-08 18:34:45, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
>> dget http://www.dustinkirkland.com/debian/famfamfam-silk/famfamfam-silk_1.3-1.dsc
>> You might need my GPG key (which is signed by several DD's): 0xF1529469
>> http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xE2D9E1C5F9F5D59291F4607D95E64373F1529469&op=index
>> http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x95E64373F1529469
>> Please let me know if you need anything else!
> Thanks for all you work on the icon set. Here are some comments:
>  * The icons are released with the following restriction:
>      As an author, I would appreciate a reference to my authorship of the Silk
>      icon set contents within a readme file or equivalent documentation for the
>      software which includes the set or a subset of the icons contained within.
>    Please add this restriction to the copyright file. A Comment: after the
>    License: block is enough.


>    Since the two readme files only mention CC-BY-2.5, please also add a line to
>    the Comment: explaining that although CC-BY-3.0 is mentioned nowhere, it is
>    actually available under CC-BY-3.0 according to upstream's website.


>    As I read CC-BY-3.0 it is enough to mention to license or add a link back to
>    it. Since this is done in d/copyright, there is no need to patch a copy of
>    CC-BY-3.0 in. If the FTP masters want a copy of (or a link to) the license,
>    we would need to repack the orig tarball anyway to include it there.

Okay.  Any changes required by me, then?

>  * The debian/* paragraph in the copyright file needs to be moved after the *
>    paragraph. CF-1.0 contains the following note:
>      Multiple Files paragraphs are allowed. The last paragraph that matches a
>      particular file applies to it. More general paragraphs should therefore be
>      given first, followed by more specific overrides.

Done.  Thanks.  Sorry about that.  I knew that...  Whoops.

>  * Please specify which source package version you want to use. I don't
>    care if you want to use 1.0 or 3.0 (quilt), but make it explicit in
>    debian/source/format.

3.0.  Done.

>  * I think there is no point in installing readme.txt as it contains no
>    additional information. For readme.html to be useful, the image links need to
>    be patched. After this has been fixed, registering readme.html with doc-base
>    would be nice.

Hmm, so I did that, created the patch, and it's over 1000 lines,
touching basically every <img src...> in that file.

So, instead, I just created a single symlink in debian/links, that
puts the icons dir in the doc location, so that those relative links
work.  This is a lot simpler and cleaner, in my opinion, than creating
a thousand line patch against the upstream readme.html.

As for registering with doc-base, does dh not just handle that for us
already, since readme.html is in debian/docs?

>  * Please keep the Debian revsion at -1 until the version hit the archive.


>> Sure :-)  Though it hasn't released in many, many years, and the zip
>> file needs to be manually repacked to an .orig.tar.gz.
> With a watch file, uscan does the repacking for us with the --repack switch.
> Since there is a watch file now, I think debian/README.source is unnecessary.


> Cheers
> --
> Sebastian Ramacher

Updated sources at: http://www.dustinkirkland.com/debian/famfamfam-silk

Dustin Kirkland
Ubuntu Core Developer

More information about the Python-modules-team mailing list