Update debian/{changelog,control,copyright} to standards compliance.

Update debian/{changelog,control,copyright} to standards compliance.

R=daniel@pocock.pro
BUG=

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/libphonenumber/source/detail?r=670

[roubert, 2014-06-04 10:42:12]

This is based on your https://github.com/dpocock/libphonenumber/tree/debian
branch, but I've edited it a bit so please take a look and see if it looks good
to you like this.

https://codereview.appspot.com/101000043/diff/1/debian/control
File debian/control (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/101000043/diff/1/debian/control#newcode3
debian/control:3: Maintainer: Debian Java Maintainers
<pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Should this really be the Java maintainers?

[roubert (google), 2014-06-10 08:32:51]

Ping?

[daniel2, 2014-06-12 15:22:58]

https://codereview.appspot.com/101000043/diff/1/debian/control
File debian/control (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/101000043/diff/1/debian/control#newcode3
debian/control:3: Maintainer: Debian Java Maintainers
<pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Group maintainership is usually a good idea.  If there are a collection of
related packages like this then we could create a new group.  Another
possibility is to make the libphonenumber-discuss mailing list the "Maintainer".
 This is OK as long as one or more real people are named as uploaders.

Also, I think you should rename libphonenumber-dev to libphonenumber6-dev as per
my patch:

-Package: libphonenumber-dev
+Package: libphonenumber6-dev
 Section: libdevel
 Architecture: any
+Provides: libphonenumber-dev
+Conflicts: libphonenumber-dev
+Replaces: libphonenumber-dev

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-dev

As explained in s8.4, it is not mandatory to version the dev package but it is
permitted and useful to do so.

The Conflicts line ensures that two versions can't be installed concurrently
(e.g. you can't install libphonenumber6-dev and libphonenumber7-dev concurrently
because some files may be overwritten and that is prohibited in packages)

[roubert (google), 2014-06-13 09:59:52]

On 2014/06/12 15:22:58, daniel2 wrote:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-dev
> 
> As explained in s8.4, it is not mandatory to version the dev package but it is
> permitted and useful to do so.

Ah, I see. (I haven't read these policy documents in a long time.) Then I agree
that adding version numbers here is a good idea. Updated now.

[roubert (google), 2014-06-13 09:59:58]

https://codereview.appspot.com/101000043/diff/1/debian/control
File debian/control (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/101000043/diff/1/debian/control#newcode3
debian/control:3: Maintainer: Debian Java Maintainers
<pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
On 2014/06/12 15:22:57, daniel2 wrote:
> Group maintainership is usually a good idea.  If there are a collection of
> related packages like this then we could create a new group.  Another
> possibility is to make the libphonenumber-discuss mailing list the
"Maintainer".

I totally agree that group maintainership is a good idea. It was just the choice
of the "Java" group that looked random to me, so I wanted to ask to make sure
that this choice wasn't something like a copy-paste error.

[roubert (google), 2014-06-13 13:50:49]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> wrote:
> I agree it is not purely a Java project - I just felt that was the best
> fit within the existing Debian packaging teams.

Then that is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure that it was intentional.

[roubert (google), 2014-06-14 13:09:09]

Committed patchset #2 manually as r670 (presubmit successful).