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

Re: RFC: arpoison



Hello P-A,

> I'm trying to package arpoison 0.6 (arpoison.sf.net). So far, so good:
> everything seems to work. I uploaded it to mentors.debian.net. If any of you
> would like to have a look ..

I have, and here are some results.

* First of all, the package is signed but your key is not signed by
anyone else. That doesn't make the signing much useful. It's a very good
idea to get some signatures on your key (even if you do not want to
become a Debian Developer). See http://www.debian.org/events/keysigning
or http://biglumber.com to find people who want to sign near you.

* debian/control: The description of the package is way too terse. The
text in README would be more fit for this.

* debian/copyright: The copyright holder is incomplete; you list only
the last name, and you miss the name of the other author. You also need
(a) year(s) with that: "(c) 2005-2006 Steve Buer" for example. BTW this
information misses in the upstream source aswell, see below.
This file has very long lines; although sensible editors should be able
to handle it, it doesn't look really good in 'less' for example.

* debian/dirs: contains usr/bin and usr/sbin while you only seem to
install into usr/bin.

* debian/rules: you should remove commented out stuff, and optional
targets, you don't use. No reason to keep it.

* debian/compat, debian/control: the current recommended debhelper
version is 5, not 4.

Some notes for upstream, not packaging problems, but good to feed back
to them:
* The README file claims this is ARPoison 0.5 while it's 0.6.
* It doesn't include a changelog.
* LICENSE contains a very old FSF address
* The source files do not explicitly state their licence; this is a very
good idea to do (in case the file LICENCE gets lost somewhere); just put
it in comment to the top. An example text is at the bottom of LICENCE.
It should also contain some statement like "Copyright <years> <author
name(s)>".
* It contains "lookup.c" which doesn't seem to do anything interesting
and isn't built.
* Make clean yields an error if the source is already clean. Turn the
"rm" into a "rm -f".
* It has some build warnings.


Otherwise, the package works fine. It just needs some polishing up on
the details.


Thijs


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: