[Python-modules-team] Bug#753785: Bug#753785: flask-silk: please ship icons in a new package which does not depends on python
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
>> 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
> * 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.
> Sebastian Ramacher
Updated sources at: http://www.dustinkirkland.com/debian/famfamfam-silk
Ubuntu Core Developer
More information about the Python-modules-team