On Wed, 2022-10-19 at 10:26 +0200, Robin Alexander wrote:

My package odr-audioenc was rejected after it reached the NEW queue
because one of the library it depends on does not belong to "main" but
to "non-free". I therefore need to change the section in file
debian/control from "hamradio" to "non-free/hamradio" and submit the
package again.

If the package itself is otherwise free, you want contrib not non-free.
The library will go to non-free of course though.

- Do I need to change the package release from 1 to 2 because of this debian/control file change or can I keep the same package release, given that the package never made it to unstable

I'm not sure, but I think it would be best to change it, as
documentation of the changes done based on ftp-master feedback.

- Can I take the opportunity of this change to include the latest
upstream version?

Yes.

can I delete the repository on salsa and re-create it again before
pushing the package?

Yes, the git repo isn't very relevant here.

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

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

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEYQsotVz8/kXqG1Y7MRa6Xp/6aaMFAmNRAj8ACgkQMRa6Xp/6 aaNqRw/9HY3DLaIECamwjPf/4YHJ9s7UNVkQv62+Ha7ZzTPTKSK1WQ4a2DhaHnil KE2Qz2KIlVFbcAmYKVI271DQwzoxE0qrxMYF4IRb5CvlQRKeaqzXjrYEpyskUbBg nfpj2KwTMS31e2Z3h3002pManLY7eIyQrfe8tmHNhzl7ojkbr1cApMwligPfERMO eAeCp0EJQ2JCySqd6JpPqRt2xFqTAiYDasBM89OBChBNPEfHCwWwqF2psLq1hYkS 9N5GEtbPEaSf5nnVTJ5niXQv2P8xFAEYARAvunOlkqB6gjmNF2/tRdGKFLRN7MMz JxvhU4pJtJh+1Gbob0vd0yEznTY4eRSqFryGslLoL/0lYoCgjb6azaWf3JtTCghm umk/RhNcuK4hBpuuxMvtr4LLEYqovH9PyIAcAT83g+I/E3HQs7wjFua/rMMoztHx SOqjdoFXAcYUYN4Zyph2DZfgo5G6/w5aS78mK0K/LNoS7b11DgAPVKJYOo4/3IYy W0o2SU4ODWBAyTS/+rzFqaecwxgRrykhbcFvKiPGWNtr2HTvF3Hk3mb5L+BzUsoC 3cx6l+k6TmZ2B5WONFoo3UxVpVOXmVApTykoEU7/baeu9kaWrNJHlfc1EsCoOvIN mhoSYhXski2BjBW7p1OPzhnGGDyt/AqR3AXmeAfvh8rFMnkAfbc=
=HfdC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Thank you very much Paul.

I will apply all your esuggestions with one exception though: the
section will be non-free/hamradio in the end, for I made a mistake when
I wrote the initial email (my apologies).

I should have written instead that the upstream odr-audioenc *INCLUDES
MODIFIED SOURCES* of fdk-aac (Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for
Android). Since the original version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec
Library for Android (I believe it is libfdk-aac-dev) is non-free, I
guess that the modified sources also belong to non-free and thus
odr-audioenc becomes non-free as well.

On 20.10.22 10:09, Paul Wise wrote:

On Wed, 2022-10-19 at 10:26 +0200, Robin Alexander wrote:

My package odr-audioenc was rejected after it reached the NEW queue
because one of the library it depends on does not belong to "main" but
to "non-free". I therefore need to change the section in file
debian/control from "hamradio" to "non-free/hamradio" and submit the
package again.

If the package itself is otherwise free, you want contrib not non-free.
The library will go to non-free of course though.

- Do I need to change the package release from 1 to 2 because of this
debian/control file change or can I keep the same package release, given
that the package never made it to unstable

I'm not sure, but I think it would be best to change it, as
documentation of the changes done based on ftp-master feedback.

- Can I take the opportunity of this change to include the latest
upstream version?

Yes.

can I delete the repository on salsa and re-create it again before
pushing the package?

Yes, the git repo isn't very relevant here.

--
Robin ALEXANDER

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

On Thu, 2022-10-20 at 14:42 +0200, Robin Alexander wrote:

I should have written instead that the upstream odr-audioenc *INCLUDES MODIFIED SOURCES* of fdk-aac (Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for
Android). Since the original version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec
Library for Android (I believe it is libfdk-aac-dev) is non-free, I
guess that the modified sources also belong to non-free and thus odr-audioenc becomes non-free as well.

I note that there is a request to move fdk-aac to main:

https://bugs.debian.org/981285

PS: please try to get your fdk-aac changes upstream if you didn't yet.

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

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

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEYQsotVz8/kXqG1Y7MRa6Xp/6aaMFAmNSDHIACgkQMRa6Xp/6 aaNE9RAAgPQtHRoETOraEfaw3OB7bx45qI8xqwWCrH/vGA6zh9lhgNe/rZbyIRn7 MVDjqIYX6Wc/YhymhACTH7wvlWTW5w2zETbRbE6VGdNrKdzcjoBrZbBh6MpjNqoW S+0WzHsajd2dj+fFSouk+xVYc1UdwbBIjMcPz83gd4T9RkwT/uw2sbIibrVMCWt9 bLmjHJ9TTyChvCoDn3OQmiqUstpUxkKKr2SJnpLwhj4eJsz2/Y3qPy28rgNZvJca DQAfBBRAjkEbuwySHsH54ZvrRpCC/OJZ2XiE5k1gnHl9m2/IaZWHyomVm5e2x8rr sNBuxDuHU7KP/KAhOEzhe2DFBlzKQPgt/Q6cdGroYWi1KdGp7K2uSMop1jov9clo 8WJ/61s4wsZykmjN8o+c7CxKBgLQAJrwIlCtsVilPs5zQUB/TNNPk6S6LnzzYELZ gcDlijs+4AwwqgrDiQuadShel8//xBKV6xolR18G2EWrYyjx6HG0QhYZUcZLFFvp OvEd/4FCJf12fWrY2D3hKuJhYTSH+vg9ilcPaONKGTgI8lJmNlKGbPaS56OpG4Tb ah3zpMcnsO8+DocnR8tG1Q8BqFIx1wm26k9BN+62M8PE8j+30j6gzdOrlmz2ljvv KmrhEgX4MN7kChQp6Sf2KxGlbHC3pn/NWuW5l/aUh81xBONbgb0=
=xvSa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

On Fri, 2022-10-21 at 17:29 +0200, Robin Alexander wrote:

1. Why didn't the "source-is-missing" error show on my environment
(prior to push the package with dput)? Is there a specific lintian setup that I missed? FYI, my packaging environment runs on bullseye (I tried
sid yesterday, but somehow there was a problem with one missing package
that was preventing apt upgrade and install)

The mentors server runs lintian from bullseye-backports not bullseye,
that is likely the reason that you are getting different results.

In general package building and testing is done in sid environments, so
you might want to use sbuild/pbuilder to at least get a sid chroot for
building and testing and or a sid virtual machine for complex testing.

The reason for the apt issues you encountered is that there is a Perl transition in progress. Please subscribe to debian-devel-announce.

https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[email protected]

2. The "source-is-missing" error is actually not a missing file but a
file (libtoolame-dab/html/psycho.html) with too-long lines. Is there any action I must take to make lintian happy or can the package be accepted "as-is" ?

libtoolame-dab sounds like an embedded code copy that should be
packaged separately. I note that some parts of it are already in Debian
in twolame. Other parts aren't though. The naming of the two is very
similar too. So it seems to clearly be either a local fork, an older
version of libtwolame or an embedded code copy of a fork of libtwolame.
It would be good if you could clarify the situation with upstream and
try to get them to remove the copy or merge the fork further upstream.
Please note that forks and code copies should be registered with the
Debian security team so that they fix security bugs in both copies:

https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCopies

If I look at the twolame source package then I see that psycho.html is
present there too, but it is automatically generated from a text file.
They clearly are not the same file, asciidoc builds the twolame HTML.
When I convert the two HTML files to plain text using `w3m -dump` and
then compare them with wdiff or meld (accounting for bugs in w3m, the
different name and different quote types), the twolame version is
definitely the newer documentation since there are sentence and word
additions. I notice that libtoolame-dab also contains a 'text'dir, but
the psy.text file in that directory doesn't contain any of the doc text.

wdiff <(cp -f ./odr-audioenc-3.3.1/libtoolame-dab/html/psycho.html . ; sed -i '/style/,/STYLE/d' psycho.html ; w3m -dump psycho.html) <(w3m -dump ./twolame-0.4.0/doc/html/psycho.html | sed "s/’/'/g;s/TwoLAME/tooLAME/g")

I'm not sure what to think of this, but two scenarios I can think of:

The libtoolame-dab text directory used to have a text file that was the
source of the HTML file and the text got dropped. This may have been an
LGPL violation when it was done if the HTML was built from the text.

The libtoolame documentation (inherited by libtoolame-dab) was always maintained in plain HTML and then later when tooLAME got renamed to
TwoLAME, they converted it to asciidoc format for easier maintenance.

Given the way the style tag contents are formatted and some of the
mistakes in the libtoolame-dab HTML, probably it was the second one.
Please add an override explaining that it is manually maintained.

libtoolame-dab definitely needs to be split out of odr-audioenc,
rebased on the latest TwoLAME and merged into it too though.

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

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

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEYQsotVz8/kXqG1Y7MRa6Xp/6aaMFAmNTSRcACgkQMRa6Xp/6 aaOwvA//VOY4GSmASKAe1bcKeu4TsFy7Xo2DyG5ghWYmKzDoUwyRleaml2zCJZGD YiZG3lPkab3hR2nusKArx2aCMFuFbR9JrKzgF/lnYjIBs2BsS5DMbjFCdL/TXF82 MPA+HsCKHxBt+WnC3tygYYJEhcQX8nbF1MH3jaOm5f3y7/5XOJbzdhZL+8P7xuky aSN73e/zgJgqlyexzvzmQi1HqOdPxprFKUReoxMmHfIe7Z/WjvVXQ4TF6NN0arZk YnCkxuFIi38rKJtDENnVZvL+dddajMdi2Wcq6fSe1YbVh+XNap6MThXka3euLjl5 AwudqB03Z6bJQhJcbhaQP7CDXSeGPOfbpoLKNBa5HBh2ZFQU2cCmobj2eETitqHb fn7c3K6xcfTKKCJiOPyUO6dipKsSubWvNvZMewHaIDrbqSiBQQoxjCHV3c2iQyCe oIgnN5HGioA4f3an7/CNlDnzetBSl8ozgTGEcpjGdGauhpi0mGBMTGzUs6s5yWFZ eKWtdvYeyOmxvnBh2eqyx2lvLKd4UmXTo5uQvbEms8K+R5UR1ZQ4C5Qr9Bzn0eS4 KFhyvahl7YlEMOrQbXK5o206MtOEX/t9F2F+CvQkgJMssG8o62jUFwV5oy2EFKFC XhzJFQMmhaU45uyQ+mMX0KL2d+uKUG1H62AEzlEdEfHKzUK6P2M=
=TDRi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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