On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:06:28PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > * debian/watch: best remove the comments, and probably unsplit the > line. Done > * 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. I'm not sure what this means in practice. The NMU version should be 0.1 (i.e. 0.8.0-0.1), and then finally when it is uploaded, it would be changed to 1. At his point it would make sense, because this is not the final 0.8.0-1 version anyway, but even though the 0.8.0-1 would not be uploaded to the official Debian repository, I still let people use my unofficial repository. So, maybe I should just remove the ...upload to Debian... line, until it is actually uploaded. > * debian/compat, debian/control: you might want to use debhelper 4 > to allow easier backports and ports to Ubuntu Done > * debian/rules: you might want to use the --list-missing or > --fail-missing options to dh_install Done > * debian/control: python-rfxswf depends on python2.4-rfxswf, while > python 2.3 is currently the default in debian. Fixed > * 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 Good catch :) I'll talk to the upstream, but I suspect that they want to keep some kind of minimal set of fonts in the tarball. Anyway, I'll make a symlink /usr/share/swftools/fonts -> ../fonts/type1/gsfonts. > * 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. Yes, I mentioned this to the upstream, but it might take a while. Meanwhile I'll patch the FAQ. > * Not sure if I said this, but you might want to upload > avi2swf/wav2swf stuff to debian-unofficial.org Yes you did :) I just thought that since we don't have the official Debian package, there is no point of having unofficial either. I'll see if the nonfree version could be uploaded there. > * 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 don't know. I haven't checked the earlier tarballs to see if they have always been delivered as binaries in the tarball. > I hope you can find a sponsor, I look forward to seeing swftools in > debian! Thanks for your comments and support Paul. > -- > bye, > pabs > > http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise Simo -- :r ~/.signature
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature