Hello,

I've created the package that's currently missing as a dependency to the
lib that I was trying to package.

Could someone please review my work on the libobject-result-perl
package? I've created a salsa repository and pushed my work there with
"dpt salsa pushrepo"

https://salsa.debian.org/perl-team/modules/packages/libobject-result-perl

Note: I've also created this upstream bug report about the typo that
lintian found: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=144048

Cheers!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/08/2022 06:53, Gabriel Filion wrote:

Hello,

I've created the package that's currently missing as a dependency to the
lib that I was trying to package.

Could someone please review my work on the libobject-result-perl
package? I've created a salsa repository and pushed my work there with
"dpt salsa pushrepo"

https://salsa.debian.org/perl-team/modules/packages/libobject-result-perl

Hi,

license problem: "This module is free software; you can redistribute it
and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself" means "Artistic or GPL-1+", not "Artistic-2.0 or GPL-1+"

Note: I've also created this upstream bug report about the typo that
lintian found: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=144048

You can also patch it

Cheers,
Yadd

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thanks for the feedback!

On 2022-08-19 01:36, Yadd wrote:

On 19/08/2022 06:53, Gabriel Filion wrote:

Hello,

I've created the package that's currently missing as a dependency to
the lib that I was trying to package.

Could someone please review my work on the libobject-result-perl
package? I've created a salsa repository and pushed my work there with
"dpt salsa pushrepo"

https://salsa.debian.org/perl-team/modules/packages/libobject-result-perl

license problem: "This module is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself" means "Artistic or GPL-1+", not "Artistic-2.0 or GPL-1+"

ah! right ok. the Makefile.pl does mention only artistic2 whereas the
README says that it can be distributed under the same terms as perl.

should I include all of those, like "Artistic or Artistic-2.0 or GPL-1+"
or is just "Artistic or GPL-1+" preferable?

Note: I've also created this upstream bug report about the typo that
lintian found: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=144048

You can also patch it

I sent a patch for this to the git repo. so only thing left is the
license to figure out

cheers!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

-=| Gabriel Filion, 19.08.2022 00:53:56 -0400 |=-

I've created the package that's currently missing as a dependency to
the lib that I was trying to package.

Could someone please review my work on the libobject-result-perl package? I've created a salsa repository and pushed my work there with "dpt salsa pushrepo"

https://salsa.debian.org/perl-team/modules/packages/libobject-result-perl

Note: I've also created this upstream bug report about the typo that lintian found: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=144048

Hi.

My review discovered two possible glitches:

1. Licensing mismatch

debian/copyright says Artistic-2.0, while upstream sources say
"same as Perl". Perl is dual-licensed under Artistic or GPL. This
is even stated in perlartistic(1) :)

2. Yet another typo

Lintian reports one more typo - "LICENSE".

Otherwise the package looks good to me.

Cheers,
Damyan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

I'm using the occasion of the local BSP for *finally* moving this forward.

I'm aware that we're currently in the soft freeze so I have probably
missed my chance of getting this library in the archive for bookworm..
but at least if the fixes seem good for folks in the team, I can assume
that it's done and wait after the release to ask for sponsoring.

I've changed the license file as suggested. I couldn't find the typo
that's mentioned below - lintian on my end seems happy - and I don't
remember if I had already fixed it before.

Does the result in the salsa repository look good enough for an eventual
new package in the archive?
If so, as mentioned above, I'll wait for the appropriate time to request
help with sponsoring.

cheers!

On 9/10/22 08:29, Damyan Ivanov wrote:

-=| Gabriel Filion, 19.08.2022 00:53:56 -0400 |=-

I've created the package that's currently missing as a dependency to
the lib that I was trying to package.

Could someone please review my work on the libobject-result-perl package?
I've created a salsa repository and pushed my work there with "dpt salsa
pushrepo"

https://salsa.debian.org/perl-team/modules/packages/libobject-result-perl

Note: I've also created this upstream bug report about the typo that lintian >> found: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=144048

Hi.

My review discovered two possible glitches:

1. Licensing mismatch

debian/copyright says Artistic-2.0, while upstream sources say
"same as Perl". Perl is dual-licensed under Artistic or GPL. This
is even stated in perlartistic(1) :)

2. Yet another typo

Lintian reports one more typo - "LICENSE".

Otherwise the package looks good to me.

Cheers,
Damyan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Gabriel,

Gabriel Filion, on 2023-02-26:

I've changed the license file as suggested. I couldn't find the typo that's mentioned below - lintian on my end seems happy - and I don't remember if I had already fixed it before.

The typo seems to have been fixed earlier in the git log indeed,
so it's sorted now. Lintian didn't raise further issue about
these sort of things.

Does the result in the salsa repository look good enough for an eventual new package in the archive?
If so, as mentioned above, I'll wait for the appropriate time to request
help with sponsoring.

Somehow, "dpt packagecheck" introduced a bogus message in the
first log entry, which is otherwise supposed to only include the
"Initial release." stanza. It's not critical, but atypical and
it might be preferable to remove it before upload to "New".

I ran a pass of "dpt fixup", and it caught a standards version
bump, and rewrapped control files with "cme", but that's about
all. I let you try it if you are curious; it shouldn't mess
with your debian/changelog, but in doubt double check.

Other than that, the package looks in pretty good shape and I
think it shouldn't pose too much difficulties when you believe
it should be good to go. Uploading now to unstable shouldn't be
a big deal: the package will simply migrate automatically to
testing after the release of bookworm. Ping the mailing list
once you're happy with the state of your package in Salsa.

Have a nice day, :)
--
.''`. Étienne Mollier <emollier@debian.org>
: :' : gpg: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
`. `' sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity
`- on air: Dreamscape - The End Of Light

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEj5GyJ8fW8rGUjII2eTz2fo8NEdoFAmP7xEIACgkQeTz2fo8N EdpP+hAAtNlEie4sjdLvCucuQfHpm9qjkHz42ZoHfApFyrQDvun3eVKqJd8yw4QE kFu6rGldoqOTU1eiC1MaN4kImomdtlq2d7Uku2qFPCJ8ZxVo8dWiHAHUYOCS8qFy raO+VZubJIa6gmsttNTubkiMsT02etmYRQZtnpJCVq5211I5B5sUKH+hIbraYnlF E1o7V4EXX2WDqcCm6fVaagIbMTgOsk334qw8/tt0Kgrb9zaF1vR3jJvaZrffGcHY vEO/ufJo8n46hG613MlqatLr8CzFEaZsOGpvBA0ctx2Lsj+PJRoVZZKb/nff8rnJ WotIO8OvjxDc3w4Hp+It1J/6iuSBhOollKIBZ79UHFQATptc6In2V7QBu1tiRb7D 05eaFdc7qTA+tsAB7YXaTLvWkR0QfksIscRnh3UIYWafsSzz6gG3Tg4OAfZap6eN 1x5ynnVQhYzrUo7hm4EmBpct4mhp/CiE7+QW/ON9W0bkC0FLVuC/+wUx7+c99IW7 Nf29/XpgSLKj1hmXTxAK/257uRK1lOYmq5iusBagU0lfNoBc0dmjr1ZLnbHE0h5r UU4ybDHcT1sSWcIDmv0fUe0gQhTcdTH4hJU6hPf1R2q6WZSIvjlc1DSLdbCB5Cby LNu0dBqM3a3Ttg4pTy+v5ad8rCw0XwPvRi3H