Re: RFS: drobo-utils
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 20:44, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 19:42, Chris AtLee <chris@atlee.ca> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "drobo-utils".
>
> I'll give it a look at the package, taking the code from PAPT svn repo.
morph@localhost:~/deb/python-apps/drobo-utils$ uscan --report
Processing watchfile line for package drobo-utils...
Newest version on remote site is 0.3.0-1, local version is 0.3.2-1
drobo-utils: remote site does not even have current version
mh, not a good start ;) Works with this line:
http://sf.net/drobo-utils/drobo-utils_(.+)\.tar\.gz
Please, prod the upstream author to remove the debian/ dir from the
upstream tarball (if he wants, can join PAPT and maintain that part in
our repo) and to name the dir in the tarball with the classic
<name>-<ver> instead of "trunk".
What about merge the 2 entries in debian/changelog? At the end, this
will be the first revision uploaded ;)
Is Peter really the maintainer of this package? I just don't want you
to confuse this field with upstream author: the Maintainer field
contains the person primarly responsable for the *Debian* package, not
the upstream part of the code. Given that all the commits was done by
your user and that "This package was debianized by Chris AtLee", I
think that this field has to contain either your name or the team (at
your choice). Oh, please note that I'm fine with Peter being there,
but I just want to be sure you have clear its meaning. :)
What about adding Vcs-{Browser,Svn} and Homepage fields?
Could you please insert the GPLv3 boilerplate in debian/copyright
file? It's enought the "usual" stuff "This program is free software:
...".
What is this "The Debian packaging is (C) 2008, informavore
<Peter.A.Silva@gmail.com>"? Who is the copyright holder for the
packaging (so debian/ dir in PAPT repo I'll upload) (connected to
above)? "informavore" is for sure wrong ;) Moreover, it's better to
state the same license for both upstream and packaging code, so both
GPLv3 (not clear for the packaging part).
It might be better to refer to GPL-3 file, not to the generic GPL link.
You can merge the "rm -f" and dh_clean commands in clean target (they
do the same job).
./DroboDMP.c needs better copyright info
what about writing the two manpages (even if minimal) missing (and
submit them upstream)?
Given that python-qt4 is defined as "essential" in upstream
README.txt, maybe it would be better to have in Depends not
Recommends?
Just wondering, is the Depends on libsgutils1 really needed? I would
expected misc:Depends to introduce it if NEEDED by libs, but that's
not the case, and even a fast inspectoin of .so seems to confirm it:
$ objdump -x lib.linux-i686-2.5/DroboDMP.so | grep NEEDED
NEEDED libpthread.so.0
NEEDED libc.so.6
Both descriptions need a little more attention: reading the
description, I really can't understand what the package does :S For
example you need to clarify what drobos are, what kind of dashboard
is, etc etc (something to give an idea of what the package contains to
guys who know nothing about it (like me)).
I think it's enough for a first check ;) Feel free to contact me in
case of clarification (morph_@OFTC for a fast reply) and commit your
changes into PAPT repo (I'd prefer using the same revision, -1), then
get back to me again for another check.
Thanks for your contribution (so far and futurable),
Sandro
--
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Reply to: