On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 11:40 +0200, Simo Kauppi wrote:
> I would like to get some comments for packaging the next upstream
> release of swftools.
* debian/watch: best remove the comments, and probably unsplit the
line.
* debian/changelog: might want to use NMU-style numbers until you
find a sponsor who wants to upload a particular version of your
package, and then you would consolidate all the changelog
entries and upload -1 to mentors.d.n.
* debian/compat, debian/control: you might want to use debhelper 4
to allow easier backports and ports to Ubuntu
* debian/rules: you might want to use the --list-missing or
--fail-missing options to dh_install
* debian/control: python-rfxswf depends on python2.4-rfxswf, while
python 2.3 is currently the default in debian.
* swftools binary package contains fonts from the gsfonts package,
perhaps you could depend on that package instead? You might also
want to ask upstream to remove the fonts and instead ask people
to download the fonts themselves.
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?searchmode=filelist&word=gsfonts&version=unstable&arch=all
* You might want to remove the questions about
compiling/installing from the FAQ. Also, suggest to upstream
that they should split those out into FAQ.INSTALL or something.
* Not sure if I said this, but you might want to upload
avi2swf/wav2swf stuff to debian-unofficial.org
* orig.tar.gz: there doesn't seem to be source code for
swft_loader.swf and tessel_loader.swf, how did upstream generate
these?
I hope you can find a sponsor, I look forward to seeing swftools in
debian!
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part