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

Re: RFS: opencpn

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:06:37PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Standards-Version is out of date, please read the upgrading document
> and make any changes appropriate.
> debian/watch doesn't really need any comments or blank lines, you can
> remove them. Same for the comment in debian/rules.
> I'd suggest adding DEP3 compliant headers to the patches:

Thanks for comments, will fix this.

> Please ensure the .desktop file installed into the binary package
> validates with desktop-file-validate, IIRC Icon should not be an
> absolute path and should not have an extension.

I fixed this up to getting no warning from lintian. Will
validate with desktop-file-validate too.

Btw, I noted that most of the packages supply icons to
/usr/share/pixmaps, but some less amount to /usr/share/icons
like in case with OpenCPN. Is there any difference between
those folders, maybe it's better to fix Makefile to install
icons to pixmaps rather than icons?

> Generally it isn't a good idea to patch Makefile.in without patching
> Makefile.am, what is the reason for that?

That's because I use configure supplied in tarball to build
the package. I am going to submit patches for Makefile.am to
upstream, so in next release we will have clean Maefiles our
of the box.

Could add patches to Makefile.am to the quilt too.

> I assume you've sent the manual page and patches upstream?

Not yet, but going to send them today.

> Please ensure that this lintian command produces no complaints:
> lintian --info --display-info --display-experimental --pedantic
> --show-overrides --checksums --color auto

Ok. I see that it compains on the configure-generated files,
some bindary in tarball (will check, did not know about
that) and lack of patch descriptions.

> Upstream should use automake's 'make distcheck' to create tarballs for
> distribution, best teach them about it.

I'll let them know. So far is it critical to make some hacking
on the package level itself? 

Anton Martchukov                     http://www.martchukov.com
0xFC4FBF28  96BC 3DAB 231A 7FCC 4F49  D783 9A69 65C1 FC4F BF28

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: