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

Re: RFS: bluemindo


On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:20:50AM +0200, Thibaut GIRKA wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bluemindo".

here it comes to my comments about your package. Please note that this is not a
complete list of possible issues or wishes about your package. As sponsoring is
an iterative process I will continue to tell you things, once you've changed
those which are mentioned below.

- Important: Your package fails to build twice in a row. That means building it
  and trying to build again from the source tree fails. This needs

- Important: debian/copyright misses copyright holders. That is very important
  and needs to be changed. Please check every file contained in the distribution
  precise for a) different copyright holders and b) different licenses. See [6]
  for policy about this.

- Important: debian/copyright seems to contain a wrong licence excerpt. It
  states "This package is free software (...) either version 3 of the License."
  Seems like this should have become a "either version 3 or later" but it
  isn't. Please use the proper license excerpt for the license also if it is 
  GPL v3 only.

- Usage of CDBS is not recommended to someone who starts with packaging. It
  takes you the chance to learn what is going on and has some serious flaws.
  There are a lot of Debian Developers that don't sponsor CDBS packages. So it
  might be worth for you to consider using a plain debhelper based debian/rules
  file. I know this is a major rework of your package, but it helps you to
  understand both technical details of the building process as well as policy.
  For me it is not a no-go (although I don't have much experience with CDBS and
  can't help you if problems shall ever occur, nor do I know the opinion of my
  AM). For further details about CDBS beeing problematic please see [1] and the
  following posts in the thread.

- Your package lacks a debian/watch file, although this is not mandatory its
  highly recommended, because it allows automatical tracking of new upstream
  versions. Please see [2] and the uscan(1) manpage (part of the devscripts
  package) for details.

- debian/menu is missing. This file is used by the Debian menu system
  which provides a standard interface between packages providing applications
  and window managers. It is important, because according to the Debian
  policy [3] you SHOULD add this file so that users See [3] and [4] for details. 

- debian/README.source is missing, but as your package contains patches it
  should document whats neccessary to get a fully patched source etc.
  See [5] in the policy for details about this file. Its okay to refer to the
  documentation in a common patchsys if it exists.

Thats it for now. Further comments will follow, once you have worked on this

Best Regards,

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2006/12/msg00134.html
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/DEHS
[3] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s-menus
[4] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/
[5] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-readmesource
[6] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-pkgcopyright

Reply to: