Re: RFS (take 2): libbash
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Patrick Matthäi <pmatthaei@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> * debian/control:
> - - Out of date standards-version
Fixed
>
> * debian/changelog:
> - - It is wrong, that the package has been made native
Well, I'm the author of the project, and I want to debian dir to be
part of the project tree (with all of the consequences I know about
it). Does not it make it native?
I've incremented version (to "0.9.10c") to signify that its a new
version (a not packaging of 0.9.10b version that was released quite a
while ago).
>
> * debian/control:
> - - Missing ${misc:Depends}
Added.
> - - Why does libbash-doc depend on libbash?
It should not. Fixed.
> - - For what do you need in an arch all only package autotools-dev as
> build-depend?
I do not understand. The policy[1] says that "all" "indicates an
architecture-independent package." Should I make it "any" instead of
"all"?
>
> * debian/rules:
> - - Ehm, why do you need 1777 for var/lock/dirlock/?
For one of the libbash library, dirlocks, I need to store temporary
lock files. I thought that natural place for these is /var/lock/....
Such a dir should be writable by any user, but I want to prevent users
from stepping on other's files. That's why 1777.
>
> * debian/libbash-doc.doc-base:
> - - => Author: <insert document author here>
Fixed
>
> * debian/copyright:
> - - There is also a GPLv2 file in your source, add this license.
Fixed. All files are GPLv3 now
> - - There is a missing copyright holder on lib/urlcoding.sh
Fixed
Thank you!
The fixed package has been reuploaded to:
http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=libbash
[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Architecture
--
Zaar
Reply to: