Hi Vincent, Am Montag, den 04.08.2008, 21:03 +0200 schrieb Vincent Bernat: > OoO Vers la fin de l'après-midi du dimanche 03 août 2008, vers 16:24, > Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@samba.org> disait : > > >> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bzr-cvsps-import". > >> You can try to seek sponsorship inside Debian Bazaar Maintainers team. > > I'm a member of that team but unfortunately all of the active members > > are DMs these days, hence my asking here. > > > Vorlon sponsored bzr-cvsps-import(thanks!), but I'm still looking for > > sponsors for bzr-stats and bzr-avahi. Thanks for reviewing! > For bzr-avahi, there is a lot of things in diff.gz. I think there is a > packaging problem here, like using an unsynced orig.tar.gz. You should > only have modifications concerning debian/ directory in diff.gz. > > I don't quite understand your answer to James Henstridge about 0.2.0 > version. Where did you put your fixed version? I simply merged a snapshot from upstream but hadn't noticed 0.2.0 was released already. I'm not sure what missed up the diff.gz, but it should be fixed now (only includes debian/). The new version depends on a very recent version of bzr-dbus that I just uploaded to Sid. > In debian/compat, you should put 5. Fixed. > In debian/control, you should also add a Vcs-Browser field. I suppose > that there is some web interface to browse the source for Bazaar as > well. There is one, but it's not running on bzr.debian.org at the moment. > I think that most things in Build-Depends are not needed for the clean > rule, so you can move them in Build-Depends-Indep (and just keep cdbs > and debhelper). Fixed. > To avoid a lintian warning, you should provide a debian/watch file with > just a comment about, for example, the URL to upstream repository. Fixed. > For bzr-stats, there is no statement about the license and I think that > the GPL mention in setup.py is a bit weak. You should arrange with > upstream to ask him to add a proper copyright statement in the > distributed files. Fixed. > Well, this may be a bit late since some packages have already been > sponsored, but since all those plugins are rather small, you could > bundle them in a single package (like gnus-bonus-el for example). This > will be a bit harder to follow upstream since there is no mechanism to > track several upstreams but this will ease your work in finding a > sponsor, I think and will allow you to ship more plugins once you will > get an upload with DM field enabled. I am not sure this is something > encouraged or something to avoid. Maybe some people will give better > advices here about this. Even if it's all inside a single source package, it would still be necessary for the package to go through NEW whenever a new binary package is added. Putting the multiple plugins into the same binary package is probably a bad idea since they each have different dependencies. I've uploaded new versions to mentors.debian.net. Cheers, Jelmer -- Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@samba.org> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/ Jabber: jelmer@jabber.fsfe.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil