On Sun, 13 May 2007 14:11:48 +0200 Giorgio Pioda <gfwp@ticino.com> wrote: > Hallo mentors, > > I've packaged qgfe and is now almost mature, downloadable at: > > http://web.ticino.com/gfwp/debian/qgfe-1.0/ The location of the .dsc file is what mentors need: http://web.ticino.com/gfwp/debian/qgfe-1.0/qgfe_1.0-1.dsc Plus the description of the package: Description: QT based Gnuplot Front End Qgfe is a GUI for gnuplot so that there is no need to learn gnuplot language to use it. Which seems far too brief to me. If one does not need to learn gnuplot to use your package, you can reasonably assume that one might not have that clear an understanding of what gnuplot can do and therefore your description is less than adequate. Also, are there features of gnuplot that your package cannot replicate? (It's fairly common for a GUI application to be unable to use all of the features of the command line version.) Unfortunately, I will not have time to sponsor this package. Hopefully one of the other sponsors will take it from here. I've only taken a cursory glance at the package, there may be more errors than just this: You should include the full licence notice in debian/copyright: This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2 dated June, 1991. This package is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this package; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. > 1) The icons used by qgfe are taken from the following *.rpm: > menu-icons-default-0.1-alt2.noarch.rpm > which is distributed under GPL licence. Is it > a problem? (I didn't succeed in finding the copyright of the icons, but > I may resolve this in the future...) Do you have reason to believe that the icons would be licenced differently to the declaration in that package? After all, that package would seem to be only for the icons. > 2) In the debian/rules I didn't explicitly set CXXFLAGS, but these flags > are set (spontaneusly and correctly) in the Makefile generated by qmake > and fit the policy 10.1. Do I have to express CXXFLAG explicitly in > debian/rules or is sufficient to leave the as is? Definitely leave as is. Things like this should NOT be overridden without good reason - cross-compilation of such packages may require different flags to be specified and it is a major PITA if the package clobbers the cross-compiling options. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpBqGAweRs_M.pgp
Description: PGP signature