Re: RFS: slashtime
On 2011-12-19 19:58, Guillaume Mazoyer wrote:
> Sorry for this late reply.
>
I guess that just made two of us... T_T - Next time feel free to nag me
within a week or so.
Assuming you are still interested in this package, ...
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 10:43:51AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> A couple of lintian warnings worth considering to fix:
>>
>> N: Processing binary package slashtime (version 0.5.13-1, arch all) ...
>> [...]
>> W: slashtime: old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file
>> E: slashtime: description-starts-with-package-name
Looks fixed (based on the diffs)
>> I: slashtime: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly
Will still be triggered (synopsis ends with a ".")
>> W: slashtime: missing-classpath libjava-gnome-java
Looks fixed, but you did not have to use a patch (jh_manifest could have
done it). I do not care about which method you use, as long as you use
the method you prefer to most.
>> W: slashtime: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/slashtime
Looks fixed as well.
> I hope I have fixed some warnings, errors etc... My lintian did not
> output all these lines + debexpo tells me that my package is lintian
> clean.
>
>> The run script (usr/bin/slashtime) is broken - I don't get the "cd /usr"
> It is used so the application can locate icons.
> Upstream contains a 'share/pixmaps' directory so the 'cd /usr' is used
> so the application can locate icons in '/usr/share/pixmaps'.
>
Okay, this is something I would like to see documented (preferably in
the script just above the cd /usr).
>> part and "exec /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk-amd64/jre/bin/java" will
>> definitely not work for an arch:all package. Furthermore I believe "$@"
>> is better than $* when it comes to arguments with spaces and such (note
>> the quotes on the first).
> I have made a patch for that and tell the upstream author that he should
> fix that upstream :)
>
Thanks
>> You may or may not be missing a short-name for the first "files"
>> paragraph in d/copyright. I don't remember my DEP-5 here, but you have
>> one for the second paragraph, so I assumed you forgot it for the first one.
> As far as I know the copyright file is ok and this syntax is correct
> according to http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
>
I think I wanted to say 'you may be missing a short-name for the license
field in the first "files" paragraph.'. But obviously I do not remember
now.
> I've re-uploaded the package on debexpo and also commited the new
> revision of the file in the pkg-java team SVN.
>
> Thank you for reviewing my package.
>
> --
> Guillaueme Mazoyer
~Niels
Reply to: