Re: RFS libctl and meep
* Thorsten Alteholz <debian@alteholz.de> [080726 22:18]:
> - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/meep
> - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> main
> contrib non-free
> - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/meep/meep_0.20.2-1.dsc
the files debian/patched/99-nopatch.dpatch.failed
and patch-stampT in the .diff.gz seem to be cruft.
The same for debian/*.debhelper*
All the long descriptions end with an emtpy line ("\n ."). I do not
think that makes much sense. As this is also the same for all, I guess
you missed the description what those package actually are.
The -dev packages only depending >= on the non-dev packages looks quite
strange.
the left-over patch rules in debian/rules make a bit hard to read.
You create debian/meep-mpi.1 but try to clean meep-mpi.1
Implementing the optional build-arch (and an empty build-indep) rules
would be nice.
Instead of "-mkdir directory", i'd suggest "mkdir -p directory".
(and using the same temporary directory for both installs will break
if anyone calls debian/rules with -jN for N >> 1).
A symbols file for the libraries would be nice.
I'm a bit confused debian/rules uses soname 1 and thus should do
-plibmeep1, while debian/control lists those with 2.
My unstable box is currently down, so the above are just the problems
I can catch by looking-at without trying.
Also Libraries are generally quite hard, so finding sponsers is
relatively hard.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!"
Niklaus Wirth
Reply to: