Hi Emmanuel, Sorry, you still have to fix a few things before the package is ready for upload. We're almost there; don't give up!
On Tuesday, August 21 2018, eamanu wrote: > No problem. However, the "License:" still doesn't reflect the license >> of the software. According to LICENSE: >> >> We provide this software under a slightly modified version of the >> Apache Software License. The only changes to the document were the >> replacement of "Apache" with "Pcapy" and "Apache Software Foundation" >> with "CORE Security Technologies". Feel free to compare the resulting >> document to the official Apache license. >> >> The `Apache Software License' is an Open Source Initiative Approved >> License. >> >> Therefore, I think a better value for the field would be: >> >> License: Apache with Pcapy modifications >> > > Ready! Thanks. The "License:" must be the same in both places, though. Here: Files: * Copyright (C) 2014 CORE Security Technologies <o...@coresecurity.com>. License: Apache Software License with Pcapy modifications and here: License: Apache with Pcapy modifications We provide this software under a slightly modified version of the ... It's OK to use "Apache with Pcapy modifications" in both places. >> I see that the contributions under the debian/ directory are released >> under GPL-3+. That's absolutely fine (I am a GPL advocate as well). >> However, I must warn you that the Debian patches will also be released >> under this license, which may be problematic if/when you decide to >> upstream them. But I understand this is the current situation anyway. >> You may want to try to contact Arnaud Fontaine and ask him if he's OK >> with changing the license to Apache in the future. >> > > Ok. I will contact Arnaud Fontaine to ask about it. I think it's ok for > now. In the next release of package I can update this field. Great. It's OK for now, indeed. > Thanks, but what you did is incomplete. In order to create a new >> package, you have to create an entry for it on d/control. What you did >> (add ${python3:Depends} to python-pcapy's Depends) is wrong because >> you're basically pulling Python 3 dependencies for a Python 2 package. >> Please have a look at other packages under them DPMT and check their >> d/control; you will find many examples of how to create Python 3 >> packages. >> > > Ready! Thanks, that's better, but there are still a few things that need fixing. 1) It's a good practice to explicitly say if the package is a Python 2 or Python 3 module. We do that by suffixing the short description with "(Python X)" (where X is 2 or 2), and by appending "This package installs the library for Python X." to the long description. Like this: Package: python-pcapy Architecture: any Depends: ${python:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends} Recommends: python-impacket Description: Python interface to the libpcap packet capture library (Python 2) Pcapy is a Python extension module that interfaces with the libpcap packet capture library. . Pcapy enables Python scripts to capture packets on the network. Pcapy is highly effective when used in conjunction with a packet-handling package such as Impacket, which is a collection of Python classes for constructing and dissecting network packets. . This package installs the library for Python 2. 2) You don't need to specify "Provides:". Please remove them from both packages. As a last note, it seems that you forgot to push the "upstream" and "pristine-tar" branches, so I can't really build the package locally here. Please do that. Thanks, -- Sergio GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36 Please send encrypted e-mail if possible http://sergiodj.net/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature