Re: RFS: flactag
Hi,
In article <[🔎] 20081216152609.GA7273@powdarrmonkey.net>,
Jonathan Wiltshire<debian@jwiltshire.org.uk> wrote:
Thanks for the comments:
> debian/changelog:=20
> * you can't target stable, you probably want unstable or
> perhaps experimental
> * have you split the changelog entry into two lines for a reason? Don't
> say bug#, just "Closes: #nnnnn" with your bug number
Both addressed
> debian/control:
> * if you are standards version 3.8.0, you need a Homepage field
> * a full stop at the end of your description would be nice :-)
Both fixed
> Your main binary doesn't have a man page.
Umm...it certainly should have! You mention it below.
> debian/dirs:
> * the only directory in here is created by the Makefile anyway, so get
> rid of the file
Gone
> debian/docs:
> * you already turn flactag.1.txt into a man page and install it in your
> Makefile, so you don't need this.
Ok, removed
> debian/flactag-doc.*:
> * you don't have a binary package by this name, get rid of these too
Removed
> debian/README.Debian:
> * empty file, get it of it
Removed
> You might consider using debhelper 7 and its beautiful rules automation.
> Since your upstream build process is very straightforward, you rules
> file might look like this:
>
> #!/usr/bin/make -f
>
> %:
> dh $@
>
> See [1] for more detail. Lose the comments and cruft while you're at it,
> to make it easier to review.
I'll take a look at that. For now I'll fix the rest and re-upload.
> debian/copyright:
> * you need to acknowledge copyrights in base64.*
Ok. I think I've done this, not entirely sure on what the 'style' is though.
Can you give any references?
> * most of your files are LGPL, with the exception of flactag.1.txt, is
> there any reason for this? You need to mention the difference in
> license.
> * it's a lot easier if the packaging is licensed the same way as
> upstream (LGPL, presumably, though your ITP claims GPL.)
Whole thing should be LGPL, that was an oversight during packaging. Should
now be sorted.
> You need a debian/watch file to comply with policy. It's used by uscan [2].
Done, but I'm not sure it'll work as I doubt the web server allows for
directory listings.
> Good start, have a go at fixing these and then upload to mentors again. Some
> sponsors prefer you to increment your version every review [3], some prefer
> you to increment for an actual archive upload. For now I would
> increment, you can always squash them down later if your sponsor prefers
> it.
I'm about to upload a new version with the version number incremented. I'll
send another RFS for that.
Thanks again for the comments.
Andy
Reply to: