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

Re: RFS: falconpl package (ITP:Bug#460591); source package

Feb 13, 2008 3:53 AM, Giancarlo Niccolai <gc@falconpl.org> wrote:

> The checks performed by Ubuntu maintainers have been quite extensive
> and deep, and the package should be ready as is; so, I am requesting a
> sponsor to forward the package in Debian too.

I was intrigued by this claim, so here is a review of just the diff.gz:

Package descriptions do not need to reference which platforms it is
ported to, especially since Debian doesn't yet have GNU/ReactOS or
GNU/Darwin ports yet.

Package descriptions need some work, please read the developers reference:


debian/rules handles nostrip instead of letting dh_strip do it

CFLAGS doesn't look like it is being passed to the upstream build system

Shouldn't you be using dh_testroot instead of that weird checkroot
thing? If not, the clean target should depend on checkroot.

Several files have no newlines at the end.

Doesn't close any ITP bug in the changelog.

The contents of debian/falconpl-dev.manpages shouldn't be nessecary,
just put them in debian/falconpl-dev.install. dh_installman is only
for manual pages not installed by the upstream build system.

Useless comments & extra space in debian/watch

Which licence is the "Falcon Programming Language License" derived
from? It looks kind of familiar. License proliferation is bad, it
would be nice if you chose another one. If you don't want to do that
please get the debian-legal list to review it.

debian/copyright references /usr/share/common-licenses twice, one
correctly, one incorrectly.



Reply to: