PS: Build completed and lintian made me aware of those: (I removed some that are not urgent right now and take some significant effort, like no-manual-pages one; please run lintian yourself, at least when uploading for bookworm.) Due to the change of "Description:" W: openmw: description-synopsis-starts-with-article I: openmw: synopsis-is-a-sentence "An open-source open-world RPG game engine." I: openmw source: out-of-date-standards-version 4.5.0 (released 2020-01-20) (current is 4.5.1) Completly overlooked that: The new version must be 0.46.0-2 W: openmw source: maintainer-upload-has-incorrect-version-number 0.46.0-1.2 Missing entry in d/copyright for that file: W: openmw source: inconsistent-appstream-metadata-license files/openmw.appdata.xml (cc0-1.0 != gpl-3+) Has this patch been forwared to upstream? I: openmw source: patch-not-forwarded-upstream debian/patches/fix_ftbs_openmw.patch Why not use compat level 13? P: openmw source: package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version 12 Easy to fix, see Policy. P: openmw source: silent-on-rules-requiring-root -- tobi Am Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 04:18:09PM +0100 schrieb Tobias Frost: > Am Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 08:18:29AM -0600 schrieb bret curtis: > > Actually, found time right away… > > Here's a review based on commit cd5c5a57fbd5b69fa958f538c3b72f6b257527d3: > > d/changelog: > - Please target exeperimental to clear NEW -- to avoid hickups if it > passes NEW only after the freeze deadline. > (We will anway need to do a source-only-upload afterwards.) > - As you are the lone prepare of this upload, the > [ Bret Curtis ] > in d/changelog is not needed and should be deleted. > - I guess #963710 needs a Closed: #xxx in the changelog. > - (General, please tell in changelog entry why something has changed… > this makes it easier to understand for th reviewer, because the "what" > is obvious in the diff, the why not.) > - Not documented changes: > - Update of SV. > - Updates of the package descriptions. > > d/control: > - The new description for opewm-data has grammar problems. > (Disclaimer: I'm not a native speaker myself) > > e.g this reads weird: > "Description: Resources use by the OpenMW game engine" > should it be "used". Why not keep the old: > "Description: Resources for the OpenMW engine"? > (This will also save the translators work) > > "Without this, OpenMW will complain about running." > reads strange too. However, this sentence does not add > any information to the package's purpose (redundant to the first > sentence, IMHO), so probably just delete it? > > - IMHO, OTOH, IIUC, the description of openmw-cs could be underlining > that it is a openmw content editor, not only a > [Bethseda] "Replacement of The Elder Scrolls Construction Set" > > > - (Optional) Please add a debian/* section to d/copyright and add > yourself. This will help assessing the packaging copyright in years > from now… > - (Optional) gbp.conf only has commented out lines; probably you want > that changed and e.g enable pristine-tar and signed-tags. > > - (For later) It looks like that d/rules could benefit from an overhaul > using debhelper > > Only small changes required :) Let me know when ready or if you disagree > on something. > > (Disclaimer: It is still building, but I don't expect to face a FTBFS) > > -- > tobi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature