Debian copyright template

Here is a summary of commands similar to the debuild command. The dpkg-buildpackage command is the official command to build the Debian binary package. For normal binary build, it executes roughly:. If the debmake command is invoked with the -T option, more verbose comments are generated for the template files. The output from the debmake command is very verbose and explains what it does as follows.

The debmake command generates all these template files based on command line options. Since no options are specified, the debmake command chooses reasonable default values for you:. The source tree after the basic debmake execution. Here is its template file generated by the debmake command. There are some commented out contents for you to customize it. These are explained in Chapter 5, Basics. The use of the empty line and the leading space are significant.

These also need to be updated. You can create a non-native Debian package using the debuild command or its equivalents see Section 4. The command output is very verbose and explains what it does as follows.

The manpage should be added to the package as reported by the lintian package, as shown in later examples see Chapter 8, More Examples. The generated files of debhello version 0.

If manual adjustments of auto-generated configuration files by the debmake command are skipped, the generated binary package may lack meaningful package description and some of the policy requirements may be missed. This sloppy package functions well under the dpkg command, and may be good enough for your local deployment. The packaging is practically the same as the above step-by-step example except for two points in Section 4.

There are several ways to generate patch files. A few examples are given in these sections:. This alternative approach to Debian packaging using a series of patch files may be less robust for future upstream changes but more flexible coping with the difficult upstream source. See Section 7. For this particular packaging case, the above Section 4. For more complicated packaging cases, both Section 4. Here is an example to create prefix-usr. Please note that the upstream source tree is restored to the original state and the patch file is available as prefix-usr.

This prefix-usr. The dpkg-source command invoked by the Debian packaging procedure in Section 4. As long as all the changes are committed by the dquilt command, the Debian source package can be built from the modified source tree.

If the. The Debian template is an officially supported template in Qubes OS. For the minimal version, please see the Minimal templates page. There is also a Qubes page on the Debian Wiki. To install a specific Debian template that is not currently installed in your system, use the following command in dom Replace XX with the Debian version number of the template you wish to install.

To reinstall a Debian template that is already installed in your system, see How to Reinstall a template. Switch any app qubes that are based on the old template to the new one. Editing on a wiki, with inline comments is pretty frustrating. It becomes troublesome when people make large changes without much discussion beforehand. What do people think to moving or locking this place so that it cannot be arbitrarily edited and starting a mailing list for discussion, so that we can reach consensus about changes before making them.

I would like to have an threadable and searchable discussion archive for this. NoahSlater It is possible to restrict modification to a group of users The final page should be published on www. The discussion of the DEP will be more efficient to resolve out the remaining issues that are debated now using the wiki as a medium.

Also, the more I think about, to more I have the feeling that we should aim at making this format not only popular in Debian, but also upstram, beacause this would save us lots and lots of work… -- CharlesPlessy Comment: This sounds like a fine idea. I think that the wiki is starting to hinder, rather than promote, the development of this standard. Let's wait for Lenny and move forward from there. NoahSlater Similar work in other projects Comment: apparently, Fedora started a very similar project : on of my upstreams the Samba Team pointed me to the very few differences in the way to name licenses, particularly the short-form and the method to combine licenses.

This might, for example, be a statement to the effect that all precompiled java class files were removed this is pretty common! So where does this fit into these machine-readable copyright files? You should have received It appears that this is inconsistent with the the currently proposed format. Are the ftp-masters happy with the format as described here and what amounts to the removal of this statement from the copyright file?

Or is it envisaged that the text after the "License:" include this statement? If this is the case, then some clarification is required and the examples should do this. I can only assume, given the large number of people and packages using this copyright format as it stands, that the FTP Masters are happy with it to date.

We only do care about everything being listed correctly. And no matter which format you use, you have to do it. And none of these formats will ever help us in checking this, no matter how developed they are - or not. Thats why you never heard anything from us. And what I wrote back then is still true. One of the arguments for doing it this way, is that it is important to be able to see the author copyright owner of the original debianization. I find that given a copyright template with the above lines, plus a template set of [Files:, Copyright:, License:] it becomes quite fast and easy to write the copyright file.

OTOH, the standardized formatting makes it feasible to make a nice "copyright browser" with beautifully formatting of the file. Please note that the RFC examples above are not correctly indented in the Wiki. MortenKjeldgaard I propose an additional field, X-Non-Free-Autobuild, to fullfill the requirements for the use of the non-free autobuilders from release. This provides two benefits: The legalese is kept at the bottom of the file making it easier to read.

When a package contains many components that are licenced to different people but all use the same licence including the Licence blocks seperatly lets you avoid repetition. NoahSlater Proposal: License aliases If a common type of license is a combination of multiple licenses like the perl license , an alias can be made, so that it can be clear that it's the particular combination of licenses and not just any combination.

Adding an extra field to save 13 characters on the odd occasion that the Perl style licensing is chosen is a bad decision. NoahSlater Comment: It doesn't have anything to do with saving characters, but to declare, that it's infact, per example, the "perl" license. This could be extended to include the exact copyright note that the upstream had placed while delegating it to two licenses. I did though of other names, " Multi-License ", " Merged-License " etc