Hello, On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, James Westby wrote: > On (20/09/06 15:00), Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Could someone please sponsor a New Maintainer upload of swish++? > > > > http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/debian/swish++/swish++_6.1.4-0pre3.dsc > > > > or > > > > http://http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/swish++/swish++_6.1.4-0pre3.dsc > > Thanks for your detailed comments. > > Note: Must bump version to 6.1.4-1 before upload. > Why have you done it like this? So that I can keep the ordering before the final upload. For example the version after I incorporate the changes you suggest will be 6.1.4-0pre4. > * What are the all_in_one.patch and swish++.conf.patch files? These are carry-overs from the earlier Maintainer's files. I was not sure whether I should remove them until the "New Maintainer Upload" goes through. I have done so now. > * You have two "added homepage to description." entries in > debian/changelog. Oops. Fixed. > * You should base the packaging on the NMUs that have been done I > believe. It is also possible to close the bugs by including their > changelog entries in the upload if you use the correct -v option to > dpkg-buildpackage. You might wish to consider this. By completely > dropping the entries from the changelog you have removed some of the > history of the package. Fixed. They did indeed provide the fixes for 5.1.x and it should be acknowledged. However, the bug closing has happened differently now (in 6.1.4) so I would rather attribute the closing of the bugs to the new upstream version rather than use " -v" for dpkg-buildpackage. > * debhelper (>> 4.0.0) in debian/control, is (>= 4.0) not sufficient? > (Only a minor point). Done. > * Is "* Generously commented source code" something the users of the > package really need to know? Not really. I will delete this. Note that the earlier package tried to distinguish itself from "swish-e" which was unmaintained at the time when "swish++" was written. So a lot of the description is a holdover from that time. I have tried to incorporate the more recent well-maintained status of "swish-e" but I must have missed this remark. > * Your debian/copyright does not have all the information that it > needs, some copyright holders and licenses are missing. Also it > doesn't quite conform to the preferred layout. See > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html > for more information. There *are* files in the tarball that are not copyright Paul J. Lucas but they are only used in the Win32 build. I have made some changes to confirm to the format and added a comment about these files. > * You might be interested in /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make, rather than > trying to patch yourself. Also the environment variable > QUILT_PATCHES would have helped you. Thanks for pointing this out. > * You don't use any CFLAGS in debian/rules. I don't think nostrip > would work for your package like this. Please add them, and if the > package doesn't build with them try and fix it. I added the CFLAGS stuff as suggested in the debian policy section 10.1. Thanks and regards, Kapil. --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature