Re: RFS: lockrun
Noah Slater wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 07:04:30PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> debian/copyright:
By the way, where did you get this line from?
> Copyright: Copyright 2008, Stephen J. Friedl <steve@unixwiz.net>
I don't see any statement in the .c file that it is copyrighted. And as the
file is in public domain, it may actually be possible that there's no
copyright at all.
>
>> > License: PD
> [...]
>> > License: GAP
> [...]
>>
>> I am not an expert in this, but AFAIK those shouldn't be in separate
>> lines.
>
> No, blank lines are allowed in the debian/copyright file.
What I meant was that I don't know if you should place the extra lines for
License: _after_ their usage. It's strange, nothing else.
>
>> debian/patches/command-option.patch:
Did you notice the patch is not clean? :)
> Binary files lockrun-1.orig/lockrun and lockrun-1.orig.new/lockrun differ
>
>> debian/rules:
>> > else
>> > CC=cc
>> > endif
...
>
> My debian/rules doesn't have these lines.
The one I downloaded from mentors.d.n to review _had_ those lines.
>
>> > rm -f lockrun lockrun.1
>> better written as $(RM) lockrun lockrun.1
>> make's default $(RM) already sets -f.
>>
>> > rm -fr $(PACKAGE_DIRECTORY)
>> Like above, but also set -r, e.g. $(RM) -r ...
>
> What is the value in doing this? As I understand it, this is only used by
> implicit rules in make and so isn't really useful for this scenario as
> it's not going to be overridden by anything.
I tend to prefer the usage of $(RM). It is not a requirement, though.
>
>> Your package still FTBFS twice in a row because of:
>> > sed -i "s/@version@/$(PACKAGE_VERSION)/" lockrun.c
>> not being reverted.
>
> I have fixed this now.
You could simply revert the sed call in clean, rather than creating a second
file, but... :)
>
> The package has been re-uploaded to mentors.debian.net.
As George Danchev, did you notice that you built the source package as a
native one?
>
> Thanks,
>
Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Reply to: