Hi Paul Thanks a lot for your feedback on the packaging for udav. On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 11:45:21AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Some feedback based on the diff.gz: > > Please get your package description reviewed by the > debian-l10n-englist email list, it contains some gramatical errors. I sent a review request on the debian-l10n list. I'm not a native english speaker, so I will follow that. I just sent a request for review on the debian-i18n list. > Is it really nessecary to repack a tarball just to remove .svn > directories? I suggest just asking upstream to use whatever the > equivalent of 'make dist' is for qmake and using their orig tarball. As explained in IRC on #debian-mentors: I contacted upstream about that. Previous tgz didn't contain them, so I suppose there was a "mistake" when packaging the source, but I'm not quite sure. But I did not get a answer so far. > It might be a good idea to put an icon in the menu file. From the > upstream screenshots it looks like they have one you could use. > > Please add a FreeDesktop menu file too, otherwise udav will not be > visible from the GNOME/LXDE menus. I will correct this, it's a good idea. > ChangeLog.txt should be a parameter to dh_installchangelogs instead of > in debian/docs. Have allready changed this. > The manual page isn't that useful upstream, but they might be > interested in it, with or without some changes. Ok, so I will sent this upstream. > Lintian complaints: > > X: udav: spelling-error-in-binary ./usr/bin/udav usefull useful Can I ask you how you did check that? I always use the following for my lintian checks before requesting sponsoring for a package and also for new uploads to review by a sponsor: lintian --pedantic -v -iI package_version*ch* How the above spelling-error-in-binary was done? Bests and thanks Salvatore
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature