Re: RFS: dlume -- Simple and easy to use addressbook (GTK+)
Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk> writes:
> On 23 Nov 2006 13:57:50 +0200
> Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> wrote:
>
> > > I'm willing to take a look at it tomorrow and If it checks out, I'll
>
> More work is needed before this package is ready for sponsoring.
>
> 1. There's a patch in the BTS that you need to include - a translation.
> Also, check to see if any of the existing bugs are already fixed or
> have obvious fixes. Tag those that are fixed as 'fixed-upstream' (see
> later). In particular, #268468 should be looked at and, hopefully,
> fixed.
Done and done.
> 2. There is one copyright holder missing from debian/copyright. Use
> grep Copyright on the src/ directory.
Done.
> 3. There are commented lines in debian/rules that should be removed
This is matter of preference. Has been discussed before and I prefer
to keep them for later use.
> 4. copyright contains a notice to check other files for other copyright
> holders - a reminder to implement [2] - you need to remove that
> reminder once you have checked the source more carefully.
> +# Please also look if there are files or directories which have a
> +# different copyright/license attached and list them here.
Done.
> 5. debian-upstream.mk appears redundant.
Fixed.
> 6. a .desktop file would be a big improvement - the current menu entry
> in Apps/Text could also be reviewed - most addressbooks go into
> Apps/Databases or Apps/Tools. The .desktop file should probably use
> Application;PIM;Office
> 7. Don't package NEWS - it's redundant.
Done.
> 8. Update the manpage to explain the absence of the claimed upstream
> location. The manpage and AUTHORS also hint at other copyright holders
> not specified in debian/copyright.
Done and done.
> 9. Don't package TODO - it's also redundant.
Done.
> 10. README is also probably redundant. It contains little information
> that isn't already available in the app or in the apt-cache description.
Done.
> 11. Merge the copyright statements at the bottom of debian/copyright.
> "The Debian packaging is (C) 2004-2006, David Moreno Garza
> <damog@damog.net>, 2007, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> and is
> licensed under the GPL, see above."
Done.
> 12. Provide a download location that can be specified in
> debian/copyright to replace the dead upstream.
The link can serve as a reference. I plan to put package at alioth in
the future, but this should not be an obstacle for upload.
> BTW. Why did you remove cdbs? dh_make can create cdbs packaging as
> easily as any other.
For practical reasons. I have tools for dh-make, which is also
more widely in use. cdbs and dh-make havae been discussed before and
choice is a personal preference.
> > - Upstream vanished
> > - No new features will appear
>
> This is bad news. This makes a comparison between dlume and equivalent
> small addressbooks (like gpe-contacts, contacts and gaby or quicklist)
> less than favourable.
Can't help that.
> If there is no upstream, I am less keen to sponsor. I'd strongly
> recommend creating a new upstream (somewhere like SourceForge as
> this isn't a Debian native package) and seeking help to create a new
Is planned.
> upstream team - unless you are willing to take on upstream tasks
> alone.
I am.
> > - I'm propbably able to fix C if there ever appears serious bugs.
>
> As maintainer, you will be responsible for doing so - I can help as
> sponsor but it'll be your job to implement the changes and test, hence
> seeking help with upstream. You're looking to adopt an orphaned package
> that is also dead upstream - that puts a certain burden on you as
> prospective Debian maintainer. Not all orphaned packages are also dead
> upstream.
This is not a problem. Dlume is worth keeping and there are no
open bugs after this upload (all fixed; except wishlist).
> Right now, the package is not ready for sponsoring.
Check now. Thanks for detailed review.
dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dlume/dlume_0.2.4-4.dsc
Jari
Reply to: