Re: Average time to get an answer about package sponsoring
Thank you for your analyze.
Now I have a new base for my work and I will can improve my skills in
Debian packaging.
But, in contrast to your words, i read the documentation about Debian
packaging and i only submit something when i think it's good and
following all requirements.
Thanks again for this analysis, and i will work harder to suite Debian
requirement.
Best regards
Michael Tautschnig a écrit :
>> That was done as shown by [1].
>> In my opinion all previous errors rasied by Chris Taylor have been
>> solved and i would like to know if i am in a good way to go deeper in
>> the package building...
>>
>
> Some comments on the current status of the package:
>
> - Your Build-Depends seem to be by far too stringent on the versions, just don't
> add (>= ...) where you don't need it.
> - Remove the manually added Depends: on libc6, libnet1, libpcap, after all this
> is what ${shlibs:Depends} is good for.
> - Your debian/changelog requires a cleanup and fixing; it should probably have
> * Initial release (closes: #495959)
> * Corrected ROFF encoding error in file doc/dhcp_probe.8
> - Did you send your patches upstream?
> - debian/copyright: Please check lines 85 (aclocal.4 doesn't exist) and 94
> (strange character before GNU)
> - README.Debian should contain information relevant for the average user, not
> for the package maintainer. Please rename this file to README.source, which
> makes a lot more sense. It need not end up in the .deb
> - debian/rules requires a larger overhaul. Please make use of the features of
> Makefiles and don't explicitly call debian/rules but instead depend on the
> proper target; rm -f will never err our, there is not need to test for the
> existence of the to-be-removed files; dh_testdir is sufficient, you don't need
> to add all those files; make distclean will do its job properly, no need to
> remove config.log etc. manually; what is this distclean target doing here? And
> I guess there are some more problems in that file, it definitely requires
> another round of review.
>
> Please fix all those bugs and request another review on the list. Also, please
> be a bit more careful, some of the above errors really don't require specific
> Debian knowledge (most notably your entries in debian/changelog), but it also
> seems that you don't yet have read the packaging how-tos, please do so as we
> would ask you to keep maintaining the package in good shape.
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
>
--
Laurent Guignard, Registered as user #301590 with the Linux Counter
Site : http://www.famille-guignard.org
Blog : http://blog.famille-guignard.org
Projet : http://sicontact.sourceforge.net
GULL de Villefranche sur Saône : http://www.cagull.org
Reply to: