Hi again,
do me two favors to start with:
a) don't CC me, I'm obviously subscribed to the list,
b) get a mail client that knows how to quote mail.
:)
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 05:18:21AM -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Jan Hauke Rahm <jhr@debian.org> wrote:
> Actually, I don't see a difference in debian/rules. Are you sure you've
> uploaded the newest version of your package?
>
> Yes, I'm sure. It isn't the tiny way of debhelper but I've created separately
> the dirs and install files for jigzo and jigzo-data. Then debian/rules
> appears just with one dh_install (tag install).
> Please considers check it once again.
Of course I do, so let's talk about debian/rules.
I accept your decision to not use dh7 sequence features altough I must
say, I don't understand why. Anyways,
a) you export DH_OPTIONS for no reason AFAICS; there is no "magic" in
the file;
b) you include the quilt make snippet but you don't make use of it;
instead you call the make file by yourself (lines 10 and 20); you can
simply make patch and unpatch dependent targets of build and clean;
c) it seems you're installing the manpage twice (through the explicit
call in line 52 and through debian/jigzo.manpages; any reason?
d) you're missing the dh_prep call which should clean up before the
build process (that wouldn't have happened with dh7 :-P)
Then, why don't you have ${misc:Depends} for the jigzo package?
dh_install takes care of installing the needed directories. So there is
no need for debian/jigzo{,-data}.dirs in this case.
README.source should have at least one sentence about why you're
pointing to another README file. Just tell the user that you're using a
patch system which is called quilt and that information about its usage
can be found at the file you're pointing to.
You still have lintian complaining about
copyright-refers-to-symlink-license usr/share/common-licenses/GPL which
is easily fixed.
After all, this is a little nit-picking but it's also most probably the
last mail from me about the status of your package. :) Please, either
fix the issues or give me reason why you don't. If we get a good working
base now, it's easy to discuss changes later if you need a sponsor
again. To be clear: I'm not questioning your ability to maintain this
package, I just want it to be good :)
Hauke
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature