[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Request Package Review

On 11/03/13 20:23, Jon Dowland wrote:
> Hi,
> You've bumped the debhelper compat version and dependency to 9, but you haven't
> touched the rules file. I'm just wondering if you are relying on a particular
> debhelper version 9 feature.

Is the best practise to only bump the version if you need to?

> Looking at debian/rules, I think it would be ripe
> for rewriting in dh(1)-style, since most of the targets are not customized. I
> also think that the build steps should be under build-arch or build-indep
> rather than the build-stamp target.

Hmmm, I don't know what half of that means since I've never managed to
get my head around makefiles yet (cmake spoiled me). I guess I have some
study to do. From what I was reading I thought dh(1) was a separate
package from debhelper as it's referenced everywhere as being something
apart instead of part of. Various developer sources say "use dh(1)
instead of debhelper". I've now found the manpage so again, more study.

> You also bumped the standards version, it would be worth indicating this in the
> changelog (and listing either "no changes necessary" - which I presume is the
> case since there are no changes ☺ - or a brief list of necessary changes to
> conform to the newer standard)

Again, I've assumed that when updating a package we bump to latest
versions. I guess I've assumed wrongly.

> You list 'unstable' in the changelog, are you intending to hold off uploading
> until after the release of wheezy? If not, you should target 'experimental'.

Correct. No hurry to upload yet, happy to learn more first.

> Maintainer/Uploaders are backwards. For games team packages, the Maintainer
> field should be the team list, and the Uploader field should be the people
> that look after the package. (I realise the existing versions of powder in
> the archive have the same problem).


> Hope this helps!

Plenty does. Thanks a lot.

Reply to: