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

Re: RFS: otpw -- A One-time Password System

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:14:50PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le mercredi 14 mars 2007 16:27, Matthew Johnson a écrit :
> >   Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package otpw.
> Few remarks concerning your package:

Thanks (-:

> * libotpw-dev: Is it mandatory that you ship only a static library ?

This is consistent with libopie-dev. Upstream doesn't produce a dynamic
library but merely recommends compiling with the .o files directly.

> * You call dh_installman but in fact you install manuals yourself.. You better 
> simply use it..

I've removed the call to installman for the moment, the man pages need
to go in separate packages so it's easier to list them in the .install
files and use dh_install

> * They are still dh_* calls that are not used. You may use them, or comment or 
> simply remove them. I can think of dh_link and dh_installdocs for instance.

dh_installdocs installs the Debian changelog and copyright files, and
now the README and the html docs.

> * debian/watch is not precise enought, it gives the result here:
> -- Found the following matching hrefs:
>      otpw-1.3.tar.gz
>      otpw-snapshot.tar.gz
> Newest version on remote site is snapshot, local version is 1.3
> You may constrain it to digit only releases for instance..

I've not used watch files before. I'm using the regex [\.0-9]* now.

> * IMPORTANT: Licence is stated only in the html document... You may ask 
> upstream to include at least a LICENCE or COPYING file, and better add the 
> licence to each headers in code files...

This is all upstream provides, I see no reason that it is not a valid
licence declaration. The licence is clear in the package as it has been
added to debian/copyright.

> * This html doc is not included, you could include it by creating a 
> debian/docs with its name inside.. It would then be a solution for using 
> dh_installdocs ;)

Actually, it's installed in the -dev package. Given that it contains the
licence information I've included it in the docs file so it should be
installed on all of them.

> * Same remark for README

Good remark, this should now be in there.

> * Maybe more remarks, but enought for today ;)
> Appart from that the package seems in a good shape, I may upload it later when 
> we'll have discussed above corrections and others I may see later..

Thanks again. I've updated the packages at
http://mjj29.matthew.ath.cx/debian-upload/otpw/ to reflect your

> Again, I for myself recommend cdbs for simple packages since you are then sure 
> not to forgot any dh_* call (yes, I know you may call uneeded ones but...) 
> and reduce your rule only to the relevant parts... But this is of course not 
> an official guideline, just *my* advice that others sponsors may not tell.

I haven't used cdbs yet and from looking at packages with RC bugs
which use it I've been very put off by the difficulty of diagnosing
problems. Debhelper I find much clearer.

Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: