On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 10:56:58PM -0400, Geza Kovacs wrote: > On 04/01/2010 12:42 PM, Christoph Egger wrote: > > > * Your patches don't have any description on them. I've missed such > > information quite often when adopting some package (there's some > > DEP for a uniform format somewhere). Also have you forwarded the > > patches upstream? > > I've added descriptions to the patches, as recommended by DEP-3. I'm not > forwarding the patches upstream, as they mostly relate to > debian-specific quirks and are not generally useful (specifically, one > deals with Node.js being installed to /usr/bin/nodejs in Debian instead > of upstream's default location at /usr/bin/node, and the other is simply > to allow coffee to be installed directly in /usr/bin/coffee instead of > /usr/lib/coffeescript/coffee, whereas upstream instead uses an > unnecessary symlink). OK I suspected that. That's one of the important things that could live in a patch description/header ;) > > > > Have you tested your package with lintian? I'm certainly not > > nit-picking on Information or Pedantic tags but some of the > > Error/Warnings definitely look worth fixing (invoking linitan with -i > > additionally gives a description of the issues at hand): > > > > I've fixed as many of the warnings as I could; currently the output of > lintian is: > > P: coffeescript-doc: no-upstream-changelog > I: coffeescript-doc: extended-description-is-probably-too-short > P: coffeescript: no-upstream-changelog > W: coffeescript: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/cake > W: coffeescript: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/cake #!nodejs > W: coffeescript: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/coffee #!nodejs > W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script > ./usr/lib/coffeescript/optparse.js > W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/lib/coffeescript/cake.js > W: coffeescript: executable-not-elf-or-script > ./usr/lib/coffeescript/parser.js > > The unusual-interpreter errors are of course unfixable since the program > only runs on nodejs, Of course > there is no upstream changelog file (though there > is one on the website, I could copy-paste it if desired but I don't > think that's in line with Debian policy), After all that's a pedantic tag, meaning it's good to think about it to not e.g. forget shipping a changelog that is actually there, but not a warning/error/info > and the warnings about > executable permissions I unfortunately didn't figure out how to fix > since quilt doesn't seem to be able to keep track of file permissions > (if anyone has suggestions on how to store changes to the file > permissions in the quilt patch set do let me know). debian/rules is just a makefile, you can call chmod from there. Not sure I'll find the time for another iteration before my next exame (April 07) Regards Christoph -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0xD49AE731 \ / Campaign : CaCert Assurer X against HTML : Debian Maintainer / \ in eMails : http://www.debian.org/ http://www.christoph-egger.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature