[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: xfe (updated package - new upstream release)

Hello Rogério,

Am Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:56:08 -0200 schrieb
Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>:

oh oh, so a long list!

> * the debian/README file talks about installation of some
>   programs; this is useless if you are installing a precompiled package,
>   because you, the maintainer, will have taken care of the dependencies.
I still have not understand the difference between README and
README.Debian. Perhaps that's the problem. So I will delete the part
about installation thinks.

> * why not wrap the (build-)dependencies to leave one for each line,
>   easing the manipulation and readability?
That's a good idea. I will do it.

> * you mention on debian/copyright that you packaged the program, but the
>   changelog says that some other people worked on that. Can you clarify?
With the background that the old package with version 1.04 was very old
and for the new standard 3.8.3 plus cdbs and other thinks I have to
create the hole debian directory new (with dh_make). Or should I
ever let the first line in debian/copyright as it was in the old

> * you can remove comments from the watch file.
Some lines came from the template.

> * why do you prefix some commands in debian/rules with a minus sign? Do
>   you want to ignore their error conditions? What about using something
This '-' should only help, if the compilation/packaging was interrupted
and in the next run at this points it would stop because the final
situation was not reached. On the other hand I see the error message
and can decide, whether it is a real error.

> * some comments on debian/rules could be removed, couldn't they?
Yes, that's right. But at the beginning of packaging they are very

> * in patch 01_no-mount-warning.patch, only linux is checked. What about
>   the kFreeBSD's? Any bug with them is now considered release critical.
>   Please, see if my comments apply or if they can be ignored.
How should I understand this? In Xfe the "mount warning" is useful for
NFS and other shared media, if they are no more exist. That could be
activated from the user by local configuration.

> * why do you have two patches to xferc? The patches have no comments on
>   them (See DEP-3).
I should use better names for patches. The first patch changes the
binary names, the second patch only changes extern program names.

> * patch 05_names-in-xfedefs.patch replaces xmms with audacious. I think
>   that that should be audacious2.
It was new for me, that the binary now have another name. Thanks!
> * why does it get compiled with -O3? Why not -O2? Why not -Os
>   (especially useful for machines without a lot of cache).
I think this should be checked together with upstream - that's right?

> * can't you compile the C++ code with -Wextra and -Weffc++? This way,
>   more warnings could be emitted and some potential bug that is lurking
>   there would just be discovered soon.
I can do it for testing. But I think this is the job for the upstream
developer, isn't it? 

> Anyway, thank you very much for xfe. I'm itching to have a newer version
> available in Debian, especially now that you split the not needed parts
> from the main program.
Thanks - but still I wait for an sponsor!

Fondest regards,
 Joachim Wiedorn

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: