Re: RFS: liblunar and lunar-applet
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 10:31:40PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote:
> > lunar-applet is chinese calendar applet for gnome environment. it's
> > version is 2.0-1 in this upload(in sid it's 1.8)
> >
> > in lunar-applet 2.0, the library part is separated to liblunar by upstream.
>
> I'll look at lunar-applet after the library is through new, otherwise it
> becomes uninstallable until the library gets in the archive.
>
>
> > PS. I have set DM-Upload-Allowed in these two packages.
>
> I don't think this is a good idea, for two reasons:
>
> - You're not a DM, so it's removing a safety check without any current
> need. That means that when/if you would become a DM, this check would
> be skipped, possibly unnoticed. It's better if this would be done
> explicitly when there is an actual intention of uploading this package
> as a DM (so after you are a DM at least).
>
> - This flag should IMO only be added when the uploader has shown that he
> or she can maintain this package well. This means that the sponsor
> must have done a few uploads of this package for this maintainer
> already. (Only when using the DM status as a workaround for the slow
> account creation, can this be skipped, IMO, but you're not at that
> stage yet. ;-) ).
OK.
>
> Some comments about the package itself:
>
> - The library version is complex. This is probably upstream's choice,
> in which case it's fine. Libraries normally have a [base]-[version]
> and [base]-dev package. That means the base name of this library is
> liblunar-1. Gtk+ uses a similar naming, but personally I don't think
> it's needed to do this until version 2 is needed *and* it is such a
> big change that porting old applications is not reasonable, *and*
> there are enough old applications to keep providing the old version as
> a -dev package next to the new version. Most libraries don't ever get
> in that state, so they don't need such a complex version.
lintian will complain if the name is not liblunar-1-0, this name is
come from "objdump -p /usr/lib/liblunar-1.so.0.0.0 | grep SONAME"
>
> - Packages containing functionality for use in a script language should
> be named lib<package>-<language>, in this case liblunar-python instead
> of python-lunar.
no, debian python policy 2.2 said the package name should be
python-foo, and python-lunar really provide a lunar module.
>
> - In the copyright file you use (C). This is said to be legally
> meaningless, you should use the complete word "Copyright" instead
> (which means it's on some lines twice). Also, it needs a time
> indication (years are good enough). You have that for your packaging,
> but not for the main program. Summary: for every copyright holder,
> you need a line of they type "Copyright [year] [name] [email]". The
> email can be omitted. For every piece of code you also need a
> license, but you have that already. :-)
OK.
an updated version is uploaded to mentors.debian.net. remove
DM-Upload-Allowed and update copyright information, please check it.
you can download the new version by:
dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/liblunar/liblunar_0.2.6-1.dsc
--
Best Regards,
LI Daobing
Reply to: