Re: RFS: nettee
On Mon 18 Feb 08 13:28, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>IANADD, anyways here are some comments about your sponsoring request
>that might be useful.
>First of all:
>On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:04:48AM -0300, Joel Franco wrote:
>> It builds these binary packages:
>> nettee - a network "tee" program
>It would be a good idea to include a long description of the package.
>Because some DDs say that they won't even consider sponsoring packages,
>if it is missing. Remember: Your RFS is your advertising of the work
>you've done. Make it interesting for others.
A long description is really difficult because the 2 words say all :)
I have thinked a lot about it and I' will not add but substract the
article, like the your link recomendation.
>> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/nettee/nettee_0.1.8-3.dsc
>Now to your package:
> General I'm not a fan of multiple changelog entries for one upload,
> but thats just my opinion. However you should note, that you need to
> build the package with dpkg-buildpackage -v 0.1.8 so that the other
> changelog entries get integrated. Otherwise the bug referenced in
> the first changelog entry (Initial release) will not be closed by
> the upload.
i will do it.
> - lacks a Homepage header to indicate the homepage. See 
> - Description is not very descriptive. See  for some tipps.
worked in it too. Is this better now?
> - Some copyright holders are missing in that file
Sorry. i did not understand.
It's the original copyright missing? i have include it.
my copyright too?
> - Its a good idea to include a "On Debian systems the license text
> can be found.." notice to the license of the software, because the
> link in the "packaging is licensed as following"-text looks like
> it *is* for the packaging only on ordinary people IMHO.
I have included your text to precede the file location.
>- debian/dirs is useless. You can change the installation of the binary
> to be install -D -m755 nettee debian/nettee/usr/bin/nettee and
> remove both the file and dh_installdirs.
>- debian/README.Debian: Hm. I'm unsure if the content is suited for
> README.Debian. Why? Because it seems like it has no documenting
> character, more beeing an advertising on how enthusiastic you are
> about the tool ;) I would like to hear other opinions about this,
> - configure and configure-stamp target is not required by
> the policy and you don't need it. so you could remove it.
> - you could probably consider adding generating optimized binaries
> (e.g. -O2)? If you do, please also add support for
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS 
>- debian/watch is missing, but highly recommended. it enables tracking of
> new upstream versions via your QA page and even a mail notification if
> you want. See  for more information.
I'tried to do it, but i don't have sure that it's correct because it's
not clear which data must be in debian/watch. I have included the
original upstream version download url.
>Thats it for now. Feel free to inform me if you did changes on your
>package and I will have another look at it.
Your information is really useful and i'm gladed by your help.
Please, look again at my package.
| Joel Franco Guzmán .''`.
| self-powered by : :' :
| Debian Linux `. `'