Re: RFS: vera++
Hi Mathieu,
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "vera++".
>
> I might be interested in sponsoring this package. I'll have a closer
> look at the weekend.
I found a couple of issues in your package:
- Your package does not build in an up-to-date pbuilder sid environment.
Please test your package with pbuilder.
- There are a couple of lintian messaged (info level). Although not
warnings or errors it would be nice to fix them:
I: vera++ source: quilt-patch-missing-description vera.patch
I: vera++: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man1/vera++.1.gz:51
(and many more)
I: vera++: package-contains-empty-directory usr/sbin/
I: vera++: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright
- The package contains a copy of cpptcl 1.1.4 from the same author (see
the list archives for discussions about embedded copies of other
libraries). Since cpptcl is not yet packaged for Debian I would accept
this for now (in particular since this version 1.1.4 does not seem to be
available from the project page yet).
- debian/copyright: You should mention the GPL version for the Debian
packaging (and adjust the link if necesary).
- debian/watch: Does not work (use uscan to test).
- debian/dirs: Remove /usr/sbin.
- debian/README.Debian: Not really necessary since it just describes
standard modifications to the build process (in contrast to reasons for
repackaging the source for example). On the other hand, it does not hurt.
- debian/changelog, README.Debian: Please update the date (dch -a).
- debian/rules: Please remove the dummy comments and commented lines.
- manpage: The first five occurrences of VERA++ refer directly to the
executable and should be in all-lowercase. Please fix the layout of the
OPTIONS section (have a look at other manpages). Please change the
synopsis section to describe the basic invocation syntax (see other
manpages). The man page should mention the location of the example scripts.
- /usr/share/doc/vera++: Do not install README.Debian (useless for the
binary package) and LICENSE_1_0.txt (contained in copyright).
Cheers,
Joachim
Reply to: