Re: RFS: admesh (updated package)
Thanks, Ansgar, for the package review.
I have fixed the package according to your suggestions and would be
glad if you have a look at them.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ansgar Burchardt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Anton Gladky <email@example.com> writes:
>> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.95-8
>> of my package "admesh".
> Please write informative changelog entries when closing bugs. Just
> "Closes: #nnnnnn" does not say much. You might want to add a small
> informative header to the patch as well (maybe using the proposed DEP-3
> What does "debian/directory is deleted from orig.tar.gz" mean? You
> cannot change the .orig.tar.gz without changing the upstream version.
> The license used upstream seems to be "GPL-2 or later". Please mention
> this in debian/copyright. For some files (getopt*) the FSF has the
> copyright. (There is also the proposed DEP-5 format for d/copyright, of
> course you are also free not to use it.)
> Most people prefer to license the Debian packaging under the same terms
> as the upstream source, so that for example patches can be reused by
> upstream as well.
> The "Sample debian/rules" header is not true: It's not a sample. There
> are two hashbang lines ("#!/usr/bin/make"). Passing "-a" to the dh_*
> tools should not be necessary. The newlines near the end should be
> Is the build-dependency on autotools-dev used anywhere?
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
> Archive: email@example.com">http://firstname.lastname@example.org