[FFe][needs-packaging] new package classicmenu-indicator

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. It seems that your bug report is not filed about a specific source package though, rather it is just filed against Ubuntu in general. It is important that bug reports be filed about source packages so that people interested in the package can find the bugs about it. You can find some hints about determining what package your bug might be about at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/FindRightPackage. You might also ask for help in the #ubuntu-bugs irc channel on Freenode.

To change the source package that this bug is filed about visit https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1055435/+editstatus and add the package name in the text box next to the word Package.

[This is an automated message. I apologize if it reached you inappropriately; please just reply to this message indicating so.]

If someone volunteers to subscribe to this package's bugs and look after it, then I'm OK with it. Provided it lands in the next week, and an archive admin volunteers to review it.

The week is up. Needs to wait for "R" now. Unsubscribing the release team.

I'm the author of ClassicMenu Indicator and I'll subscribe to its bugs for future versions and provide any other form of collaboration that is needed or useful.

Would be great to get CMI into universe for 13.04

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages
---
Ubuntu Bug Squad volunteer triager
http://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad

*** This is an automated message ***

This bug is tagged needs-packaging which identifies it as a request for a new package in Ubuntu. As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Specs/NeedsPackagingBugs, all needs-packaging bug reports have Wishlist importance. Subsequently, I'm setting this bug's status to Wishlist.

And again this wasn't sponsored before a feature freeze (not enough manpower to review the queue it seems), so please (re-)subscribe ubuntu-release if you still want to get this uploaded for raring.

I will attach a source package to this bug including some changes of my own; copyright file in machine-readable format, addition of manpage, etc.

It's a leaf app, if you can upload it before the final beta freeze (28th), and then find an archive admin volunteer to review it, I'm OK with it. But given the recent rate of NEW review, I'm a little concerned that you'll find one.

For the record, the package I attached builds, installs and runs in Raring. I ended up not adding a manpage as I found most other indicator-type applications do not have them either.

I forgot to add (LP: #1055435) to the 'Initial release' changelog entry, so if someone uploads could they add this please?

Tweaked debian/changelog, sbuilt locally, and uploaded.

It's in NEW waiting on an archive admin: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/raring/+queue

Un-subscribing sponsors and marking Fix-Committed.

Thanks, I've just reviewing that in NEW and you have some license issues: setup_helpers.py is under the LGPL3 but you don't have a copy of the license in your tarball and that file and its license are not mentioned in debian/copyright (nor is the copyright owner, "Copyright (C) 2009, 2010 by Barry A. Warsaw")

I'm rejecting that upload but otherwise the source looks fine, so feel free to reupload once that's fixed and I will NEW it

I've made the changes to debian/copyright.

I'm hoping that the lack of LPGL3 license in the source tarball will not be a problem, setup_helpers.py does include the text:

# You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
# along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Graham, a good pointer is at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html . So while it's fine not to include an entire copy of LGPL3, it's best practice to reference it on the local Debian{,-derivative} system along the lines at http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html#copyright . HTH.

Graham, to clarify, in the previous comment I was referring to the content of debian/copyright, i.e., you still need a file LGPL3 with the contents of http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt .

@Daniel: we had some recent discussions on #ubuntu-release and consensus was that the full license doesn't need to be included in the tarball as long as the intend is clear and that the license is one of the /usr/share/common-licenses one, so not having the copy of the LGPL is that version shouldn't be a blocker, even if it would be good to have in a next update

if somebody wants to upload the updated version I will NEW review it

just for clarification: I will not block NEWing on that to be resolved in that tarball, but please talk to upstream and get the license to be included in their next release

@Sebastien: Thanks. Upstream is subscribed to this bug and I did ping him by email.

To whomever uploads, *again* I have forgotten to add (LP: #1055435) to the 'Initial release' changelog entry, sorry.

This package is now in raring.