Greetings. It seems to me some people entirely miss the point. The issues I'm talking about are not only those that I mentioned, maybe I'm not even right in some point (though I doubt that - analogous to the binary-indep comments - anyone would comment `main' like `This is the entry point of the program'). Nevertheless, below is another few examples, from two unnamed packages: ,----[ Diffstat ] | debian/changelog | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | debian/control | 20 ++++++++++++++++ | debian/copyright | 19 +++++++++++++++ | debian/dirs | 1 | debian/docs | 2 + | debian/pam | 4 +++ | debian/patch.diff | 14 +++++++++++ | debian/postinst | 24 +++++++++++++++++++ | debian/postrm | 23 ++++++++++++++++++ | debian/prerm | 8 ++++++ | debian/rules | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | debian/test.sh | 11 ++++++++ | params.h | 8 +++--- | 13 files changed, 242 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) `---- Notice the patch.diff and test.sh files... With a little attention, those wouldn't have made it into the diff.gz. ,----[ debian/rules ] | configure: configure-stamp | configure-stamp: | dh_testdir | # Add here commands to configure the package. | touch configure-stamp `---- Well, configure is not a required target, it does nothing, and the package in question is unlikely to get a configure script ever. Still, the target is there. I've seen this in quite a lot of packages. On the other hand, the same package contains this: ,----[ debian/rules ] | # Build architecture-dependent files here. | binary-arch: build install | # Nothing to do. `---- Now, that's something I consider a good comment. No `by default', which suggests that there _is_ a way to make the inspected debian/rules build binary-arch packages, it clearly says it doesn't do anything. To mention a bit more, there are README.Debian files, which aren't properly filled out, or contain information that is already available in the upstream docs, and is not Debian related, etc, etc, etc.. As to why do I post here instead of filing bugs with a patch? I thought it might be useful to drop a note, so future packages will be better. (Oh, and the bug reports are progressing, I just need a little time to verify that my scripts didn't report false positives)
Attachment:
pgp39CamPjMJg.pgp
Description: PGP signature