Re: RFS: swftools (updated package)
On Nov 18, 2007 4:50 PM, Simo Kauppi <swk@nic.fi> wrote:
> I would appreciate if somebody could take a look at the package and point out
> any packaging mistakes in it.
A review of your package:
Don't forget to send your patches upstream.
Might want to ask upstream to split FAQ 2-6 out into FAQ.install or something.
I think your python stuff needs to be better; pyversions should be
used to get the list of versions to compile for.
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython/NewPolicy
Any reason you don't include /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make instead of
inventing your own patch/unpatch targets?
The homepage should be removed from the description:
http://wiki.debian.org/HomepageFieldHOWTO
Any reason you only produce a static library and no shared library? Do
any other packages use the static library? If not, maybe it could be
dropped?
Has the security team been informed that it includes a copy of the
xpdf code?? From the debian/rules it looks like you build against
libpoppler instead. You might want to get upstream to drop it from the
tarball, since it seems libpoppler can be used.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: