[Letsencrypt-devel] Bug#815199: ITP: acme-tiny -- letsencrypt tiny python client

[Jeremías Casteglione]

Hi:

I've no intentions to bother anyone, but do you think that this package
could be uploaded then? I need sponsorship as I'm not a DM.

Thanks,


Jeremías

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:16:12 -0300
Jeremías Casteglione <debian at jrms.com.ar> wrote:

> Hi:
> 
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:56:06 -0500
> Harlan Lieberman-Berg <hlieberman at setec.io> wrote:
> 
> > Just a few more things.  One, you should use the Expat license, not
> > MIT, if it matches, as per Debian Policy.  There are multiple
> > versions of the MIT license, so it helps with
> > clarity.
> > (https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/)  
> 
> Done! (commit 33f9a56). I'm not sure if I did it right though, I used
> the "complex" example from the link above.
> 
> I chose MIT license initially because working on another package
> (numad) some months ago I was instructed to use the same license as
> upstream, for debian/* files, as they say it's better/easier if you
> need to send patches to upstream, etc...
> 
> So this time I used the dh-make MIT license template[0], which sets
> the license for debian/* as MIT.
> 
>  0: /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/licenses/mit
> 
> Based on the policy then, shouldn't 'dh_make -c mit' use the Expat
> license and/or symlink mit to expat or something like that? Currently
> I don't see an expat license being provided either nor by dh-make nor
> under /usr/share/common-licenses...
> 
> Am I missing something? Should I ask/report to dh-make people?
> 
> > If you want to maintain this package under the Debian Let's Encrypt
> > team, you should set the maintainer to Debian Let's Encrypt
> > <letsencrypt-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org>, and set yourself under
> > Uploaders.  
> 
> Done! (commit d9fae40)
> 
> > I might not personally have bothered with the upstream changelog
> > file since they don't ship one themselves; you could simply
> > suppress the lintian tags about it.  It's fine to leave it the way
> > it is, though.  
> 
> Well, the changelog is being "implicitly" provided (git log), isn't
> it? Also, as a debian user, I expect/like the packages to include it.
> 
> > Other than that, it looks good!
> >   
> 
> Good, thank you all for looking into it.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>