On 06.03.2012 06:34, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Andreas Moog wrote: > >> Mentors doesn't accept my package for some reason, so I put it on my own >> webspace: >> >> dget -x http://www.warperbbs.de/packages/clanlib2_2.3.5-1.dsc > > A review is below. Thanks for the review. > The -dev package should suggest the -doc package and the -doc package > should probably recommend the -dev package? Sounds good. > Do you need Multi-Arch: same fields on some of the packages? Yes, indeed, I could set the library package to Multi-Arch: same. The development package needs more investigating, for now I will leave it. > If you are taking over the clanlib source package name, > debian/changelog should contain the old changelog entries of clanlib > 1. debian/control needs adjusting too. Sure. > Looking at the output of `cat debian/*symbols | c++filt`, I wonder if > it is a good idea to add symbols files and am reminded of these posts: > > http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2012-01/007.html > http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2012-02/001.html That's the plan. > dpkg-gensymbols -c0 is not a good idea. For the first Upload, I intend to use -c0 to get access to the dpkg-gensymbols generated diffs in the buildlogs so I can update them as appropriate. After the symbols files are updated to match all architectures, the override will be dropped. > There are a lot of warnings from dpkg-shlibdeps. Yes, the libraries are underlinked. I will contact upstream about that. > The debian/copyright file misses some info for these, please recheck > that debian/copyright is complete: > > Setup/CodeBlocks/iniparser.c > Setup/CodeBlocks/iniparser.h Hmm, licensecheck --copyright > There are a lot of duplicate files in the source package. Yes. What is the recommended course of action as the Debian packager? (Besides contacting upstream of course) Should I run a tool like 'hardlink' on the installed files? > cppcheck warnings: [...] Will forward upstream. > GCC warnings: [...] Same. > lintian complaints: > > P: libclanlib-2.3-dbg: no-upstream-changelog > P: libclanlib-2.3-dev: no-upstream-changelog > P: libclanlib-2.3-1: no-upstream-changelog > P: libclanlib-2.3-doc: no-upstream-changelog Yes, there is no upstream changelog. > I: libclanlib-2.3-dbg: extended-description-is-probably-too-short > I: libclanlib-2.3-dev: extended-description-is-probably-too-short > I: libclanlib-2.3-doc: extended-description-is-probably-too-short Ok, will try debian-i10n-english@l.d.o > X: libclanlib-2.3-doc: duplicate-files > And vast numbers of more duplicate-files warnings. See above. Thanks again for the review. Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature