Bug#1069078: RFS: lua-mode/20210802-4 [RC] [Team] -- Emacs major-mode for editing Lua programs

[Xiyue Deng]

Sean Whitton  writes:

> control: tag -1 + moreinfo
>
> Hello Xiyue,
>
> Please explain the autopkgtest_keep change.  Remember that autopkgtests
> are to test the installed package.  If you need to keep the .el files,
> it must be for some reason other than because the test suite actually
> just tests those.
>

I think this is another example of buttercup tests that requires source
.el files to run.  I'll probably open a bug on buttercup to see whether
this is required for buttercup.  Meanwhile I think it'd probably be
better to just disable autopkgtest as the tests are already run as part
of the build process.

> You've removed the Built-Using with the justification that it's an
> arch:all package, but that doesn't make sense; Built-Using is for
> licensing reasons, and may well be applicable to an arch:all package (I
> think this came up before with one of your uploads?).

Ah I was following the suggestions of Lintian which said it cannot be
used by arch:all packages which is probably wrong.  On the other hand,
on a closer look at the policy regarding Built-Using on section 7.8[1], it
has the following passage:

,
| This field should be used only when there are license or DFSG
| requirements to retain the referenced source packages. It should not be
| added solely as a way to locate packages that need to be rebuilt against
| newer versions of their build dependencies.
`

I checked that lua-mode is of GPL-2+[2], and of all its dependencies
lua5.3 is of MIT which is compatible with GPL, and the rest are all GPL
2+ or 3+, so I don't see a license or DFSG need to add this Built-Using
requirement.  The change was introduced in [3] but it was part of the
modernization effort so there is no direct justification of adding the
field.  May be I'm missing something here?

-- 
Xiyue Deng

[1] 
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#additional-source-packages-used-to-build-the-binary-built-using
[2] Upstream switched to GPL-3+ in 2022 but we haven't packaged that yet.
[3] 
https://salsa.debian.org/emacsen-team/lua-mode/-/commit/2e207a6835a3899f6eba0675c4763c1757335bcc


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#1069248: RFS: ruby-mdl/0.13.0-5 -- Markdown lint tool - transitional dummy package

[Norwid Behrnd]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ruby-mdl":

 * Package name : ruby-mdl
   Version  : 0.13.0-5
   Upstream contact : ["p...@ipom.com"]
 * URL  : https://github.com/markdownlint/markdownlint
 * License  : MIT
 * Vcs  : https://salsa.debian.org/nbehrnd/ruby-mdl
   Section  : text

The source builds the following binary packages:

  markdownlint - Markdown lint tool
  ruby-mdl - Markdown lint tool - transitional dummy package

To access further information about this package, please visit the following
URL:

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/ruby-mdl/

Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command:

  dget -x
  https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/ruby-mdl/ruby-mdl_0.13.0-5.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

 ruby-mdl (0.13.0-5) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * increment to new Debian Policy 4.7.0

Regards,

Bug#1069078: Acknowledgement (RFS: lua-mode/20210802-4 [RC] [Team] -- Emacs major-mode for editing Lua programs)

[Sean Whitton]

control: tag -1 + moreinfo

Hello Xiyue,

Please explain the autopkgtest_keep change.  Remember that autopkgtests
are to test the installed package.  If you need to keep the .el files,
it must be for some reason other than because the test suite actually
just tests those.

You've removed the Built-Using with the justification that it's an
arch:all package, but that doesn't make sense; Built-Using is for
licensing reasons, and may well be applicable to an arch:all package (I
think this came up before with one of your uploads?).

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature