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

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 :)


>> 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

> 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


Reply to: