Re: RFS: blacs-pvm (updated package)
Hi James,
On 9/26/06, James Westby <jw+debian@jameswestby.net> wrote:
On (25/09/06 20:53), Muammar Wadih El Khatib Rodriguez wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1-17
> of my package "blacs-pvm".
Hi,
I cannot sponsor, but I have some comments for you.
* Should the package names be prefixed with lib?
Well, If you get lintian warnings about it so the package names should
be prefixed with lib. I know that I'm getting those warnings.But, What
about the dependencies? I'll research if dependencies problems happen
when the blacs' package names are changed. I think at least
scalapack's dependencies should break.
* blacs1-pvm.postinst is useless, as that will be added by
dh_makeshlibs
You are right. I made a test. I erased the file blacs1-pvm.postins and
dh_makeshlibs created this file like I read in the online manual [0]
So, Done :-)
* Please drop the use of ${Source-Version}, see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2006/09/msg00228.html
I read all the thread including [1] and [2]. I think the part of the
code that you mentioned above is into control file. I did tests and I
didn't have success when I changed Source by binary. I was reading the
code of one package that you maintain [libksba] and you use
${Source-Version} instead of ${source-Version} which is the correct
form :S Well, If we are talking about that variable into control file.
* The short descriptions are all lacking in my opinion
Basic Linear Algebra Comm. Subprograms - Dev. files for PVM
doesn't give much indication of what the package is for.
* The convention is to indent Homepage: by two spaces, see
I read the reference, and I could see that changelog file of blacs
does not have problems with:
6.2.4 Upstream home page
* It would be good if the license informtion could be included in the
package itself. At any rate I think it would help to make it clearer
what is going on the the debian/copyright file. You should state
that you enquired by email and got that response.
Also there is no copyright information in that file, there is only
license information wrongly labelled as copyright information. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html
* Why do you clean at the start of all your build targets? That is
what the clean target is for, and is messy.
I agree. I'm fixing it.
* Please add a watch file.
Done.
* There is an important linda warning
W: blacs1-pvm; The library libblacs is not in a shlibs file.
I'm working on it.
Thanks for your mail, I learned a lot :-)
[0] http://www.fifi.org/cgi-bin/man2html/usr/share/man/man1/dh_makeshlibs.1.gz
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/binNMU
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/NonMaintainerUpload
--
Muammar El Khatib.
Linux user: 403107.
Key fingerprint = 90B8 BFC4 4A75 B881 39A3 1440 30EB 403B 1270 29F1
http://muammarelkhatib.net | http://www.teorex.org
,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Reply to: