Re: RFS: cppcheck (2nd attempt)
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 22:45:38 Reijo Tomperi wrote:
> Robert Wohlrab wrote:
> > - watch file is missing (see uscan man page for sourceforge examples)
>
> Added (I hope it is correct, at least uscan from program's folder did
> not give any errors.
Looks good. You can test it by running `uscan --report --debug`
> > - Daniels name has non-utf8 encoding in FileLister.cpp, FileLister.h and
> > testtokenize.cpp (upstream issue)
>
> Fixed ( I will try to get this fixed on the upstream also)
Never ever change the source code in the diff. This one was only meant for
information and has nothing to do with the debian package. If you really have
a really good reason to change the source code use a patch system like dpatch
or quilt or make a dfsg tar to remove non dfsg files from the source.
You can test your diff.gz with
`lsdiff -z $package_$version.diff.gz | grep -v "/debian/"`
This should print nothing (but a newline)
> > - clean doesn't remove autogenerated cppcheck.1
>
> Fixed
You can use `dh_clean cppcheck.1` to remove this file instead of using rm.
> > - Vcs-((Git|SVN|..)|Browser) is missing in control. If you use a vcs to
> > manage your debian package - please add these.
>
> I'm not using, but I have submitted the man page to the upstream so it
> can be found from there.
You should try to use one to keep track of different versions and branches
(stable, testing, unstable and maybe special ubuntu branches). There are
different helper packages for that `apt-cache search -n buildpackage`.
It is not a must or should. I've just noticed that decentralised vcs works
just fine for that.
> > - the correct link to GPL-2 (for your manpage) on debian systems is
> > /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 and not /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
> > which links currently to GPL-3
>
> The example in the wiki-page you provided to me use the same target for
> GPL-2+ license as I did ( I also have version 2 or later there):
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat#head-f4f1796c2acee38a5362a
>3f7fa26860623f28a4b
>
> Is there perhaps an error in the wiki? For now I left it like it was
> mentioned in the wiki.
Good question... Maybe someone else on this ml has a opinion on that.
> I hope I did the right thing when I changed the version number from
> 1.25-1 to 1-25-2. I couldn't find much information about what to do
> after getting first feedback.
It is correct. Every new release should increment the debian revision. It can
be found in the policy under 5.6.12
- There are typos inside the changelog s/andn/and/, s/xsltprc/xsltproc/
- "*-stamp is not removed by target" is wrong. It will be removed by dh_clean
which is inside the target.
I've just commented on the important stuff. The rest looks fine.
--
Robert Wohlrab
Reply to: