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

Re: RFS: FileZilla3 - GUI ftp client of wxwidgets2.6

2005/9/29, Paul Wise <pabs3@bonedaddy.net>:
> On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 17:19 +0800, Emfox Zhou wrote:
> > >       * short and long description in debian/control needs improvement.
> > >         A one line long description is not enough.
> > improved
> I suggest adjusting the grammar.
ahhh, sorry for my poor English, i'll try to improve it..

> > >       * debian/rules: remove dh_make cruft and commented out dh_*/dpatch
> > >         lines
> > removed some, but i use dpatch, so it's needed
> I refer to this line, which is commented out:
> #dpatch call-all -a=pkg-info >patch-stamp
got it.
> > >       * debian/manpage.1: that isn't a real manpage, delete it or write
> > >         one
> >
> > deleted, i think a GUI apps needn't have a manpage
> Debian policy is that all binaries should have a manual page. You may
> have trouble finding a sponsor without this.
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s12.1
> Lintian warning:
> W: filezilla3: binary-without-manpage filezilla
> N:
> N:   Each binary in /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /bin, /sbin or /usr/games should
> N:   have a manual page
> N:
> N:   Note, that though the `man' program has the capability to check for
> N:   several program names in the NAMES section, each of these programs
> N:   should have its own manual page (a symbolic link to the appropriate
> N:   manual page is sufficient) because other manual page viewers such as
> N:   xman or tkman don't support this.
> N:
> N:   Refer to Policy Manual, section 12.1 for details.
> N:
> W: filezilla3: binary-without-manpage fzsftp
ok, i'll write one.
> Additional notes:
>       * please ship docs/*
>       * the upstream changelog is empty, best to not ship that
>       * same with the README/NEWS
just ignore them? is it ok?
>       * some additional lintian/linda warnings to fix:
> lintian:
> W: filezilla3 source: source-contains-cvs-conflict-copy locales/.#zh_CN.po.1.2
> N:
> N:   Package contains a CVS conflict copy. These are generated by CVS when
> N:   a conflict was detected while merging local changes with the updates
> N:   from the source repository. The file name is `.#file.version', where
> N:   file is the original filename and version the revision your
> N:   modifications were based on.
> N:
> W: filezilla3 source: source-contains-cvs-conflict-copy locales/.#zh_CN.po.1.3
> linda:
> W: filezilla3; Package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf.
>  This package Build-Depends on automake* or autoconf. This is almost
>  never a good idea, as the package should run autoconf or automake on
>  the source tree before the source package is built.
hmmm, i'm not clear about it, the source need automake1.8, even
automake1.7 will failed on it, how should i declare this?
> > >       * why didn't you file an ITP bug before you started packaging and
> > >         close it in debian/changelog. Please do this now
> >
> > done. sorry, i don't know i should do it, but just finding sponsor at
> > debian-mentors list.
> Hmmmm, I wonder where this should be spelled out so people get it right:
>      1. Get interested in a package
>      2. Find it is not in debian
>      3. Check if it can be packaged and if it is already being packaged
>      4. Decide if you want to package and maintain it
>      5. File an ITP (intent to package) bug to *prevent duplication* of
>         work
>      6. Either upload it, or register your need for a sponsor on s.d.n
>      7. Search for a sponsor on debian-mentors and other fora
pretty good hints

GnuPG Public Key: 0xF7142EC2

Reply to: