Søren Hansen wrote on 09/06/2005 22:20:
>>debian/copyright:
>>
>>- The license is GPL, the copyright is "Copyright 2005 Novell, Inc.",
>> you said the opposite.
>
> Not understood. Miguel wrote it, passed the copyright to Novell and the
> license is GPL. What am I doing wrong then?
The way you filled out the debian/copyright file, it looks as if the GPL
wrote the software while the license is "Copyright 2005 Novell, Inc.".
In other words, you exchanged the values for "license" and "copyright".
>>debian/rules:
>>- You added a line with docbook-to-man to the build-stamp target, but
>> commented it out. Why?
You didn't answer my question here. Is there a reason why you added
docbook-to-man but commented it out?
>>- You should remove, not only comment-out unneeded dh_* calls
>
> I used dh_make to make the debian directory including the rules file,
> and dh_make puts all of those in. That's why they're there. I'll remove
> them.
Right, dh_make always adds all of them. Unless you expect to need and
use one of them in the future, you should remove the unneeded ones as
they only increase the size of the diff and make it more difficult to
see what debian/rules actually does.
>>Did you remove config.sub/config.guess from the upstream tarball or
>>didn't it contain those from the beginning?
>
> They weren't there.
Interesting. The package uses autoconf/automake but those weren't in the
package? Weird (or, at least, unusual).
>>W: em-panel-applet; File /usr/share/doc/em-panel-applet/NEWS.gz in
>>package has zero size.
>> The file above has a size of zero, which probably means it shouldn't
>> be installed.
>>***** So you added a NEWS file, but didn't fill it with anything. Either
>>***** remove it or add content.
>
> No, actually, the NEWS file was in the upstream, but empty. Just like
> README, AUTHORS and ChangeLog. I'll remove them, no problem.
At least you shouldn't install them with the corresponding dh_* commands
so that they are not included in the package.
>>E: em-panel-applet; Binary /usr/bin/em-panel-applet contains unneeded
>>section .comment.
>> This binary or shared library is not completely stripped. It contains
>> the unneeded section .note, or .comment.
>
> Hmm... I may have compiled it with nostrip and debug options.
> Whoops. :-)
That's one of the reason why it is always a good idea to run linda and
lintian on your final package.
>>E: em-panel-applet; Binary /usr/bin/em-panel-applet is not stripped.
>> The binary shown is not stripped, and is included in a standard
>> package, while Policy shows that it should be stripped.
>>***** Forgot to strip the binary ("strip em-panel-applet")
>
> dh_strip does that, right?
It should, IIRC.
>>lintian also finds these additional ones:
>
> Weirdness. When I ran lintian, it was totally quiet..
What file did you run it on? You get the most complete output if you run
it on the .changes file (which causes lintian to check both source and
binary package, if both are included in there).
> Thanks for all you excellent input.
No problem.
cu,
sven
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature