On Wed Aug 05 11:46, Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote: > Dear debian-java readers, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "remotetea". Hi Picca, the package looks very nice, however, I have a few small queries about it. - You have set DM-Upload-Allowed: yes in the control file. I would rather this field be omitted unless there is actually a DM (as far as I can see, you aren't yet) in Uploaders and after review by a DD. - the package is named remotetea, it includes a library which should be depended on (at a guess) by packages built using the tool. If this is the case then you should probably have a libremotetea-java package which goes in the build-deps. Are the jars which provide the binary different from those which provide the library? - You've given the debian/ copyright as GPL3 but the rest is GPL2+. Aside from the fact I don't like the GPL3, this means the resulting binary package is GPL3 and can't be used with other GPL2-only packages. I generally think it's a bad principle to have a different licence for the packaging as for the rest of the software. Would you consider changing that to 2+? - Given you are repacking the sources you should indicate this in the version. Normally people append .dfsg if it's a free/nonfree issue or .debian otherwise. - debian/rules clean doesn't remove the javadoc or classes directories. This means that if you dpkg-buildpackage twice it fails to create the source package. You need to call ant clean in the override_dh_auto_clean target - *embarassed* you seem to have triggered a bug in jh_depends where it depends on jarwrapper but not a JVM. I've fixed it and just uploaded 0.21. Once that's in I can rebuild and upload a version of remote tea with any fixes from the above. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature