Bug#996592: RFS: workflow/0.9.8-1 [ITP] -- Parallel computing and asynchronous web server engine
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Am 17.11.21 um 14:57 schrieb Lance Lin: I've uploaded a new version of workflow with the suggested changes. The filenamemangle in the debian/watch file is not correct. Please test it with uscan. Unfortunately I am not able to reproduce any errors with the watch file. uscan also does not return any errors. Is there something specific I should look at? No, it is okay now. Maybe GitHub has had some changes on their releases/tags site again. Or I was mistaken. There are missing copyright notices and BSD licenses in src/util/crc32c.* I reviewed the files and crc32c.h has the "BSD 2-Point" license text without explicitly calling it as such. crc32c.c has a copyright notice and free distribution notice but it is non-traditional and added by the original author, Mark Adler. Is this sufficient? crc32c.c is licensed under the zlib license. I do not know what you mean by "non-traditional". You have not changed the d/copyright accordingly. While the zlib license is not required to be included legally in d/copyright (source requirements are fulfilled; no binary requirements), Debian Policy requires it. The BSD-2-clause and the Magnus Edenhill copyright notice have to be included legally and by Debian Policy.
Bug#996592: RFS: workflow/0.9.8-1 [ITP] -- Parallel computing and asynchronous web server engine
On 13.11.21 13:20, Niels Thykier wrote: Bastian Germann: Hi Lance, [...] You should not need to build depend on dh-exec with debhelper 13. Cheers, Bastian Drive by remark/clarification: * If you use dh-exec then you need to Build-Depend on it regardless of debhelper compat level. * With compat 13, debhelper provides a *subset* of the dh-exec and you /may/ be able to replace your use of dh-exec with debhelper compat 13 features. In this case, you should remove the build dependency on dh-exec. I think Bastian's remark was alluding towards my second bullet but I feared it might be misread as "just drop the build dependency". Niels is right with that claim. In your case you use the DEB_* variable replacement in at least one of the install files, which dh 13 can also do. So you would remove that dh-exec use and then remove the build dependency.
Bug#996592: RFS: workflow/0.9.8-1 [ITP] -- Parallel computing and asynchronous web server engine
Bastian Germann: > Hi Lance, > > [...] > > You should not need to build depend on dh-exec with debhelper 13. > > Cheers, > Bastian > Drive by remark/clarification: * If you use dh-exec then you need to Build-Depend on it regardless of debhelper compat level. * With compat 13, debhelper provides a *subset* of the dh-exec and you /may/ be able to replace your use of dh-exec with debhelper compat 13 features. In this case, you should remove the build dependency on dh-exec. I think Bastian's remark was alluding towards my second bullet but I feared it might be misread as "just drop the build dependency". Thanks, ~Niels
Bug#996592: RFS: workflow/0.9.8-1 [ITP] -- Parallel computing and asynchronous web server engine
Hi Lance, The filenamemangle in the debian/watch file is not correct. Please test it with uscan. Please consider relicensing debian/* or at least debian/patches/* to the same license as upstream (Apache 2). The problem with the debian/* license being more restrictive than upstream is that your patches cannot be used by upstream and you might exclude possible reverse dependencies from using the Debian package. You reference the non-existing https://salsa.debian.org/debian/workflow. If you want to maintain your package there, I can create that repository for you on sponsoring. Else, please remove the references. You can include the cmake files in the -dev package if there are no problems with them. There are missing copyright notices and BSD licenses in src/util/crc32c.* Please fix lintian's duplicate-short-description and debian-rules-uses-as-needed-linker-flag. You should not need to build depend on dh-exec with debhelper 13. Cheers, Bastian
Bug#996592: RFS: workflow/0.9.8-1 [ITP] -- Parallel computing and asynchronous web server engine
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 20:05:41 + Lance Lin wrote: workflow (0.9.8-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * debian/patches/*: Removed online tests * debian/rules: Removed temporary skipping of make check * debian/control: Added libworkflow-dev * debian/rules: Removed unused comment line * Added install files * Initial release (Closes: #995460) Please only keep the "Initial release (Closes: #995460)" entry and remove the others. For subsequent revisions keep it like that and always use -1 Debian revision until the package is sponsored. When you have provided a new version untag moreinfo on this RFS.
Bug#996592: RFS: workflow/0.9.8-1 [ITP] -- Parallel computing and asynchronous web server engine
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "workflow": * Package name: workflow Version : 0.9.8-1 Upstream Author : Li Yingxin * URL : https://github.com/sogou/workflow * License : Apache-2.0 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/workflow Section : libs It builds those binary packages: libworkflow1 - Parallel computing and asynchronous web server engine libworkflow-dev - Parallel computing and asynchronous web server engine To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/workflow/ Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/workflow/workflow_0.9.8-1.dsc Changes for the initial release: workflow (0.9.8-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * debian/patches/*: Removed online tests * debian/rules: Removed temporary skipping of make check * debian/control: Added libworkflow-dev * debian/rules: Removed unused comment line * Added install files * Initial release (Closes: #995460) Regards, Lance Lin GPG Fingerprint: 8CAD 1250 8EE0 3A41 7223 03EC 7096 F91E D75D 028F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
